Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Sir Archibald Johnstone Kirkwood, Knight, having been created Baron Kirkwood of Kirkhope, of Kirkhope in Scottish Borders, for life—Was, in his robes introduced between the Lord Steel of Aikwood and the Lord Smith of Clifton.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton

The Right Honourable Winifred Ann Taylor, having been created Baroness Taylor of Bolton, of Bolton in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Evans of Parkside and the Lord Clark of Windermere, and made the solemn affirmation.
	Several Lords—took the Oath or affirmed.

Department for Constitutional Affairs

Lord Hunt of Wirral: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further proposals they have for the future structure of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Prime Minister announced in May 2005 that we would assume responsibility for coroners and local government elections. In April 2006, an independent judicial appointments commission and a judicial complaints commission will be established. At the same time, the new tribunal service will be launched. The implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in April 2007 will create the new role of the Public Guardian alongside a new court of protection.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: But, my Lords, does the Minister recall that two years ago the Prime Minister announced the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor? Is she aware how pleased we are on these Benches that we still have a Lord Chancellor?
	Will she also accept my very best wishes for every possible success with her new brief on compensation? Does she foresee a place in the forthcoming compensation Bill for rapid and effective rehabilitation right at the heart of a streamlined and improved compensation system whose priority is making people well and fit again, rather than putting an arbitrary price tag on human inconvenience or pain? Will she therefore put in place the right structure to ensure that, properly funded in partnership with the compensator, the National Health Service has a leading role to play in such a partnership?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's comments on the Lord Chancellor. We have debated that many times in your Lordships' House.
	I am grateful for the noble Lord's congratulations, if I may put it like that, on my work on the compensation culture. There is an interdepartmental working group of Ministers, including my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. One issue being considered between Ministers from the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions is precisely the question of rehabilitation, for reasons that the noble Lord knows extremely well, which is critical to ensuring that we get people back to work and deal with those issues accordingly.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, why do not the Government transfer the responsibility for criminal justice to the DCA and thereby constitute a proper ministry of justice?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are already strong trilateral relations with colleagues in the Home Office and with the Attorney-General which work extremely well. Any changes to the department's organisation would be a matter for the Prime Minister.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is there a Cabinet committee considering future constitutional arrangements? If so, who chairs it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is no constitutional Cabinet sub-committee as such. As I said, there is a Cabinet sub-committee considering issues concerning electoral reform and so on, of which noble Lords are aware, and I ensured that details of who attended that Cabinet committee were put on the website.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, which department has responsibility for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the creation of new statutory offences? I have the impression that, since 1997, we have had one or two of those and I wonder what effect, if any, that has had on provision for the courts—which is, of course, the responsibility of the DCA.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am unable to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, details of exactly how the structure works, because it is not an area specifically covered in the Question. I can tell him that the relations that I have described between the Attorney-General's office and the Home Office ensure that when we consider statutory offences and their impact on the courts, that is done collectively and collaboratively.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, will the Government help to alleviate considerable public confusion by making their mind up whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to be known as the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that there is a great deal of public confusion—as much as the public, I am sure, spend time deliberating that question. However, the question has been raised with me in your Lordships' House. I shall refer it to my noble and learned friend to see whether he wishes to indicate further, perhaps in writing to the noble Lord, his personal view.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, further to my noble friend's original Question, is the noble Baroness happy that, two years later, we still have a Lord Chancellor?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, how could I be other than happy with my noble and learned friend?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us look back with nostalgia to the days when the occupant of the Woolsack was the present Lord Chancellor's predecessor?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the joy of being in government is perhaps never to look back. However, I have a great deal of nostalgia for many noble Lords who have served in all kinds of capacities. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that they have all done a wonderful job.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the noble Baroness writes to her noble and learned friend asking whether he would like to be known as the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, will she suggest to him that he remains the Lord Chancellor?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was not going to write to my noble and learned friend; I was going to talk to him and ask him to write to the noble Lord who raised the question. I will ensure that noble Lords' views are brought to his attention but it will be for him to decide.

European Union: Budget

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in the current negotiations on the European Union budget.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Government are currently negotiating both the annual budget and the next financial perspective. In both areas the Government are working effectively with like-minded member states to ensure budget discipline and value-added for spending at EU level. Other member states have taken a keen interest in the UK's ideas and we are confident that the negotiations will result in an outcome in the best interests of both the UK and the EU.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and appreciate that it is difficult for the Treasury to find short answers to say nothing. Would not the simple answer to my Question have been, "Not a lot"? My noble friend has nothing to apologise for; we understand that the Prime Minister is under a little pressure at present. Does he accept that in practice it means a challenge for the Government to make clear that a major alternative is possible; namely, substantial reform of the budget perspective? In those terms, will he make clear that there is no need to rush for this; it will not be settled next week, next month, or indeed this year, and it would not matter if it were because it does not come into force until 2007? Will my noble friend give us a clear assurance that the Government have no intention of making even the tiniest concession on the budget rebate without it being agreed clearly that there will be major reform of the budget including, not least, the common agricultural policy?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. I am sorry if the answers are too long; I shall try to get them to match the length of the questions in future.
	I agree with my noble friend that it would be fine if we could settle the issue this month, but it is important that we get the right answer rather than get it quickly. On what has been achieved, the parameters of the 2006 budget are already largely in place and it is much easier to make progress on that than on the financial perspective for the next seven years.
	In many ways, the discussion about rebate is a distraction. The key issue is the expenditure side of the equation. The continuing inefficiencies and inequities on the expenditure side of the budget and the resulting unfairness of the United Kingdom position mean that the abatement remains fully justified and is not up for negotiation. If there is a fundamental review and debate about the future of Europe, including the financing of the European Union, everything will be up for discussion.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, is it not the Government's objective to secure a reduction in Community financing of the common agricultural policy, single payments, payments on animal welfare and payments on environmental protection? If so, would it be in the context that payments in that direction could be made by national governments out of national resources?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Government's policy is to continue to seek to bear down on expenditure under the CAP, particularly following the success in 2003 of the new financing arrangements.
	If the funding of agriculture were returned to member states, it would have to happen across the piece. We are not optimistic that that will happen quickly but one of the Government's objectives is to reduce spending on the CAP. We regard the agreed levels as ceilings not targets. It cannot be right that so much of the budget—some 40 per cent—is spent on agriculture.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that referring to this as a rebate is not helpful? In fact, it is a corrective mechanism that was never intended to be renegotiated. As my noble friend said, it was intended to be a reform of the expenditure side of the budget, which, when so reformed, will mathematically eliminate the need for any payments back to the United Kingdom. The real challenge is for the other countries of the European Union—not only France, but also major net beneficiaries such as Spain—to renegotiate the expenditure side of the budget so that the need for the corrective mechanism disappears.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's assessment. Calling it a rebate is incorrect because it never gets paid over in the first instance. It is simply deducted from the contributions that we make in a subsequent year. The assessment is right. Unless we tackle the inequities of the expenditure side, we will not make progress on this issue. If we do, it is not so much a matter of negotiation, it is a matter of arithmetic as to what will happen to our net contribution.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister envisage that as part of the Government's negotiating policy they will argue that the structural funds should no longer be receivable by the UK and should go simply to the poorer new accession states? In that case, what action do the Government envisage they will take to make sure that those regions which are currently beneficiaries of EU structural funds do not lose out in future?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Government would want the structural funds to be concentrated on only new member states, as well as Greece and Portugal, which fall below 90 per cent of the EU average. Domestically, the Government have given a guarantee that should our position prevail on this, a guarantee will ensure increased domestic regional spending in the UK based on the funding that UK regions might have expected under a status quo scenario after enlargement.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, whether or not we are talking about a rebate or a corrective mechanism, the Minister will be aware that Commissioner Mandelson has said that it is wrong for the UK to expect poorer countries to pay for any amount, thereby saying that the UK should give up around £300 million of its rebate. Does the Minister agree that Commissioner Mandelson was wrong to get involved in that way?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I have set out the Government's position. It is for Commissioner Mandelson to answer himself on what he has said.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, if this is a negotiation, one cannot expect either side—I am thinking particularly of Britain and France—to make unilateral concessions. In any negotiation, any trade union official would say that either it can be conducted in decibels or with a view to reaching some sort of outcome. Is it not right to see Mr Mandelson's contribution in that light?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, that might be right, but in any negotiation it is important that the participants are clear on the parameters. In relation to the rebate, or the abatement as is probably a more appropriate term, the Government have set out their position, which I dealt with earlier.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, do the Government believe that this country might have learnt its lesson? Had we been in at the beginning of the European Community, the CAP would never have been shaped as it was. When we exclude ourselves from a project or we are semi-detached, as is the case now with asylum, immigration and law enforcement, we will never be full beneficiaries from the policy. Have the Government learnt that lesson from the past 50 years of the European Union and the European Community?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we are where we are on those issues. We cannot rewrite history. It is always important for a judgment to be made on what is in the UK's best interest on all of those issues. When we enter into agreements, that is the key judgment which should underpin our decisions.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are where we are because inequalities and inefficiencies have been allowed to continue for far too long? In many cases, no one on that side of the House questioned them until the matter of the rebate arose. We are paying for what was not done in the way of vigilance in the past.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am not sure that I can speak for the Government in the 18 years between 1979 and 1997. But certainly this Government have been diligent in seeking to make sure that the budgetary process reflects value-added at the European level and that we have tight budgetary discipline, which has been a key plank of the Government's approach to those matters.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are well into the sixteenth minute. We have to be fair to the other Questions.

Middle East Peace Process

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will promote specific initiatives, within the European Union component of the quartet system, to accelerate negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel and the quartet partners on the road map proposals.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the road map is the best means to reach a just and lasting settlement to the Middle East conflict. We work with the parties, EU partners and other members of the quartet to seek to move this process forward. When we take over the presidency of the European Union on 1 July we shall have a seat on the quartet. We must and we shall do whatever we can to use that opportunity to seek progress towards the goal of a negotiated, two-state solution.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassuring Answer, but is she aware that more and more people, depressingly, feel that it will be only a pull-out from Gaza, unless the quartet really work together from now on and get Israel to launch negotiations and talks with the Palestinians?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government, like many other governments in the quartet, believe that the pull-out from Gaza, as the noble Lord states, is the first step in the process towards a peaceful settlement and solution in the Middle East. The key priority for the UK presidency over the next few months will be to support that disengagement. Thereafter, we will be able to move on to encourage both sides to return to the road map.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the quartet are confident that the Israeli Government now accept that the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel not only places obligations and commitments on both sides, but will also require the withdrawal of the substantial majority of the 425,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and in east Jerusalem?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords. I can guarantee that that is the case. As I stated earlier, the present withdrawal from Gaza is but the first step forward. The Government are confident that, ultimately, a solution will be found and that the Israelis will withdraw from the other settlements.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, that said, will my noble friend at least congratulate the Prime Minister of the democratic state of Israel on the determination that he is showing to move out of Gaza and to start withdrawal from parts of the West Bank? It is the only country in the area that suffers from the problems of being a democratic state. Surely, it is important for us also to take steps to help and encourage President Abbas to clamp down on the terrorist organisations that are operating in Palestine.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, yes, we welcome the Israeli disengagement and congratulate Prime Minister Sharon on his commitment to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank this summer. We hope that that withdrawal will be as full as possible and is a first step towards wider progress. In respect of security, the Government fully support Abu Mazen's commitment to deliver on that. We do that in very practical terms. We have provided police and training for police in Gaza, as well as a communications room in Ramallah.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one initiative that neither Britain nor the rest of the European Union would be wise to take is to talk too freely at official level with the Hamas terrorist group and its representatives? Does she agree that the effect of that is bound to be to undermine Abu Mazen's position and that of the moderates? Is it not time for a rethink in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the decision to let those discussions take place? I cannot believe that they are doing much good.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the United Kingdom stands firm in its policy of not dealing with terrorists. The terrorist wings of both Hamas and Hezbollah are proscribed organisations in the UK, and Hamas is subject to an EU asset freeze. That said, in February the Foreign Secretary authorised low-profile working level contacts in the Occupied Territories with Hamas politicians not directly implicated in violence. This was for a very practical reason. If we are working with projects in areas in which local authorities are Hamas-run, it is thought better to ensure that the projects are progressed so that they can contribute to the regeneration of those parts of Palestine. That is a pragmatic and practical reason.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while Ariel Sharon obviously deserves credit for the courage he is showing in dealing with the settlers in Gaza—and in that respect the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is completely correct—it is extremely unwise to continue to build new settlements in the West Bank which would simply present Ariel Sharon with another series of extremely difficult problems over the coming decade or so. Is it not high time that Her Majesty's Government made clear that further settlements should now be thoroughly discouraged?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. These settlements must be frozen. The Government have been concerned about reports in March of Israeli plans to build 3,500 more homes between the West Bank settlement of Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem. We have raised those concerns both with the Israeli ambassador and in Israel, as well as within the quartet.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that greater political and economic co-operation between Israel, Palestine and the EU in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and the EU/Israel action plan gives the Union a greater stake in the Middle East peace process and thus further strengthens its role as a member of the quartet?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, a strong relationship between Israel and the European Union clearly increases the EU's influence. That will enhance our ability to influence Israel on our human rights concerns and other issues, including non-proliferation. However, we should not forget the role of the EU as the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority through the contributions made both by the Commission and through member states. This also boosts its impact on the Middle East peace process.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is time for the last Question.

Medical Academics

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I want to correct the printing error. My Question relates to medical academics.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there are sufficient medical academies to meet teaching commitments in medical and dental schools and to maintain the current standards of British medical research.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Government are acting to secure a strong academic base in medical and dental research and teaching. We are investing nearly £33 million over 2004–05 and 2005–06 to support the extension of the new consultants' contract to clinical academics, and a further £3 million specifically to support senior academic GPs. In the 2004 Budget, we announced an additional £25 million in each of the next four years to strengthen clinical research in England.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and recognise all that the Government have been doing to try to enhance medical academia in order to meet the increased need for medical trainees in this country. However, given the shortfall in lecturer grades, with a drop since 2000 of 260 posts, representing a fall of 14 per cent, do the Government recognise the need to put pressure on the Healthcare Commission to ensure that, when it inspects trusts, the core standard should include teaching and research as a primary requirement to ensure that the teaching needed takes place?
	Furthermore, do the Government recognise that pathology is in dire straits, with a drop in medical academics from 308 to 153 since 2000? That means that 80 per cent of medical schools in this country now have no trainee lecturers in academic pathology. Without research, we shall neither speed up diagnostic accuracy nor improve throughput in diagnostic processes.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness about the importance of teaching and research in institutions. I also share her concern at the decline in the number of medical academics.
	The latest figures produced by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools are of concern, and we have a series of measures in place to try to tackle the issue systematically over the coming years. They include the measures set out in the Walport report to improve pathways for younger doctors to embark on academic medicine while retaining their clinical work. However, the council also recognises that the current expansion in the health sector has been substantial and will help to deal with the issues over time. Since 1997, four new medical schools have opened. Medical student numbers are up by 40 per cent and, with 6,000 starting courses last year, are now at their highest level. The number of NHS consultants has increased by 25 per cent, and we have seen an unprecedented increase in dental student numbers. Progress is being made.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that unless the remuneration is right, we will not see sufficient numbers entering the profession?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. That is precisely why we have extended consultants' contract arrangements to academics under the arrangements that have just been made so that their pay better reflects the rest of the sector, and why we have put in place the current arrangements in respect of senior academic GPs.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords—

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have plenty of time for both questions. It is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that considerable concern is being expressed in some dental schools, particularly in the Birmingham Dental Hospital, that because of the lack of money for dental research, they are simply unable to bring in the students we must have if we are to provide the people of this country with proper dental services?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we understand that concern, which is why last year my right honourable friend the then Health Secretary announced the provision of 170 extra training places for undergraduates in dentistry from this October, with a capital investment of £80 million over the next four years so as better to ensure facilities, including the expansion of our existing dental schools and the possibility of opening a new one.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the situation we are facing is something of a vicious circle? With the increase in the number of medical students and the opening of new medical schools, pressure is being applied more and more on medical academics to increase their teaching load, while NHS managers are putting pressure on them to see more and more patients, to the detriment of their research. The consequence is that, in the research assessment exercise, it is clear that their research is suffering, which results in lower funding for the departments in which they work. That needs urgent attention.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we understand that concern, which is a major part of the reason why we asked the UK Clinical Research Collaborative and the Modernising Medical Careers initiative at the Department of Health under the chairmanship of Dr Mark Walport to look at the medical academic career structure. Two months ago, Dr Walport produced a comprehensive report suggesting ways of improving entry routes, increasing flexibility and dealing with the shortage of properly structured and supported posts. Since the publication of his report, we have announced the recruitment of 100 new junior clinical lectureships and funding from the Higher Education Research Council for England for the recruitment of another 200 senior clinical lecturers. We understand the concerns, and we are addressing them.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords—

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrats on this Question.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over 50 per cent of medical academics are aged over 45? Does not that make the shortage of junior posts particularly acute?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it does. That is precisely why we are taking the actions that I have outlined in pursuit of the findings in the Walport report.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on pouring some money into the academic world and supporting medical research in this way. Is it not paradoxical that, at a time when there are so many positive advantages coming out of medical research, the number of clinical academics is falling year on year? Is it not also possible that there is a lack of liaison between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills in looking at the problem in its entirety?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it is inconceivable that there are anything but the most excellent relations between the Department of Health and my department. But in so far as it is possible to improve them, we will of course seek to do so.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are many places in this country where it is not possible to get on the list to receive NHS dental attention?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we understand the problems facing NHS dentistry. That is why we have taken the measures that I set out earlier to improve the supply of dentists and dental services.

Business of the House: Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord President on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill from Thursday 23 June to Wednesday 22 June.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The UK is surrounded by a number of major shipping routes and the English Channel is the world's second busiest international waterway, after the Malacca Straits. As an island state with a coastline of more than 10,000 miles, the UK Government are very conscious of the potential environmental impacts stemming from a major pollution incident.
	Overall, shipping is an environmentally friendly form of transportation. The Government wish to capture the environmental benefits of trade by sea while defending the UK's marine and coastal environment. The Government recognise that trade by sea is inherently international and are committed to expanding our shipping industry's share of it, not least as a direct contribution to environmental protection overall.
	Balancing our trading interests, the rights of others to trade freely past our coasts, and our environmental needs, requires a proactive international approach from the UK in getting agreement. We must follow through by implementing what we have agreed, and the Bill helps us to do that. The main purpose of the Bill is to allow the UK to implement two important international treaties, one greatly to improve compensation for oil pollution and the other to introduce measures to reduce air pollution from ships.
	Marine oil pollution can have devastating effects. The public are familiar with the dreadful images of polluted coastlines and oiled sea birds and mammals, but the effects go much further. The economies of coastal communities, and their fishing and tourism industries, can be shattered by a major oil spill. Following the "Torrey Canyon" incident off Land's End in 1967, it quickly became evident that there were inadequate arrangements for compensating those who suffered damage. That led to the development of an international system to ensure that victims of oil pollution damage would be fully and promptly compensated.
	The resulting international regime was founded on two treaties: first, a liability convention that made ship owners strictly liable for pollution damage and required them to maintain insurance to cover their liability; and secondly, a fund convention that provided additional compensation to victims of oil pollution damage when they were unable to obtain full compensation under the liability convention. The additional compensation provided under the fund convention is paid for by oil receivers in state parties to that convention. I stress the point that the regulatory regime is provided internationally by states; the liability and compensation system within it is funded by the industries concerned.
	When we read lurid stories following accidents, we should perhaps recall just how comparatively rare serious maritime accidents are, and how responsible the industries have been in updating compensation arrangements, as well as employing better construction and operational standards in the ships used.
	The original instruments have since been superseded, but the international regime remains in place and, to date, 93 states have joined the regime. During the past 26 years, the regime has provided compensation in more than 130 oil pollution incidents. In the vast majority of cases, claims have been settled without the need for lengthy and costly court cases.
	Since the regime was established, the UK has experienced two further major incidents, the "Braer" off the Shetland Isles in 1993 and the "Sea Empress" off Milford Haven in 1996. The amount of compensation available at the time was just £51 million. The international fund provided compensation of £51 million in respect of the "Braer" and £37 million in respect of the "Sea Empress".
	Even with the compensation provided by the international system, cost recovery in those incidents was not without difficulty. There were concerns at that time that the levels of damages from those incidents could exceed the limit of compensation then available. That led to periods when claimants could not be paid in full or quickly. The limits of compensation were therefore significantly increased in 1996. Full payment of claims under the international system has proved to be a problem in a number of cases, notably after the extremely damaging "Erika" and "Prestige" incidents in 1999 and 2002 respectively. The present regime provides for an overall limit of £160 million of compensation. However, it has become clear that, following the most serious incidents, the present regime may not be able to settle claims for several years, and that claimants may never receive full compensation in the most serious cases.
	The membership of the international regime agreed that it was necessary to address that fundamental shortcoming and consider other possible improvements to the regime. The Supplementary Fund Protocol was therefore developed to provide an additional £440 million of compensation for victims of oil pollution in states that choose to ratify the protocol and are content for their oil industries to make additional financial contributions. In short, when both the existing fund and the supplementary fund can be applied to an incident they bring to bear a total of £600 million to compensate claims arising from that incident.
	I am pleased to report that the UK has played a prominent part in helping to develop the necessary reforms. The supplementary fund entered into force in March this year and has, so far, been ratified by 10 states—Japan, which has always been a significant contributor, and nine states in Europe. The membership is now expected to grow quite rapidly and we wish to ensure that the UK can have the added financial protection that the supplementary fund can provide.
	The Bill therefore makes provision for the UK to implement the Supplementary Fund Protocol and it is the Government's intention to do so as soon as possible. The supplementary fund must be paid for, and it is the oil industry that will have to bear the additional costs. However, it is expected that the costs of all but the most extreme incidents will continue to be covered by the existing fund.
	The main benefit of this legislation is that the presence of the supplementary fund will enable claims for payment under the existing fund to be met without fear of exceeding the limit of that fund. Full and prompt payment should be assured by virtue of the fact that the total sum of £600 million compensation that will be available should cover any likely circumstances.
	In most cases, if an oil spill affects the UK coast, substantiated claims will be paid promptly and in full under the existing regime and, if necessary following a major spill, by the supplementary fund. This should, in future, avoid the likelihood of full payment of claims being delayed until the final costs of an incident can be more accurately assessed, as we saw after the "Braer" and "Sea Empress" incidents, and after other more recent incidents elsewhere in Europe and the wider world.
	Following enactment of the Bill, the UK would be able to join the Supplementary Fund Protocol, and have the benefit of the financial protection it offers, within a relatively short period of time. Until that happens, the UK cannot access the substantial additional benefits conferred.
	I now turn to the detail of the legislation. The Supplementary Fund Protocol would be implemented in the UK by secondary legislation. An Order in Council has been drafted and will be made available by the time that the Bill reaches Committee, if the House agrees to this procedure. The order contains the detailed provisions implementing the Supplementary Fund Protocol in the UK. The provisions are of a technical nature and amend those in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 relating to the fund convention so as to extend them to the Supplementary Fund Protocol.
	The order will require major oil receivers in the UK to make contributions to the supplementary fund in the same way that they currently do in respect of the existing fund. The contributions will, of course, be needed only if the £162 million available from the existing fund proves insufficient in a particular incident.
	UK oil importers already contribute to the existing fund. They were consulted last year on the proposal to implement the Supplementary Fund Protocol. The oil industry clearly favours a predictable and international approach to providing compensation for oil pollution damage. The industry supports implementation of the Supplementary Fund Protocol as just one measure of a wider strategy to improve the existing regime.
	The next part of the Bill makes provision for the implementation of future instruments governing compensation for oil pollution damage.
	The international regime is not perfect, but it works. It is preferable to and less burdensome on industry and governments than domestic or regional arrangements. The UK, along with a number of other states that have suffered major pollution from oil tankers, believes that the regime needs to be kept up to date. As I mentioned earlier, the original instruments were superseded a number of years ago. The fundamental principles of the regime, however, remained unchanged, but improvements were made, for example, to widen the scope of application. The regime now provides for reasonable environment reinstatement measures. The regime has also developed considerably in respect of compensation for the economic consequences of an oil disaster, when originally it was conceived as primarily concerned with clean-up.
	The regime will no doubt continue to evolve. Indeed it must if it is to remain viable and successful and meet legitimate claims. The principles on which the present version of the regime is based were first agreed over 20 years ago but were not implemented until the present regime came into force in 1996. It is important, therefore, that the Bill makes provision for the implementation of any future instruments, when developed, to improve the regime still further. Such instruments are of course agreed only after extensive debate, in which the industries concerned fully participate.
	The UK Government will always want the option of being part of the international regime from the earliest opportunity. That is why the Bill makes provision for the UK to become a party to any instrument which modifies or replaces the existing regime. Of course, such a power would not be used before the usual public consultation and regulatory impact assessment exercises have been conducted. The provision of the power in the Bill means that the government of the day have the ability, if they so decide, to implement any new, internationally negotiated instruments governing oil pollution compensation without having to first pursue primary legislation. Parliament would of course retain an active scrutiny of the future proposal by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, which would apply to any secondary legislation made under this provision.
	The Bill also includes a very minor amendment relating to the existing international fund as contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. That Act contains a provision relating to the time limit within which claims must be brought against the existing international fund. In order to ensure that the provision of the 1995 Act is interpreted consistently with the text of the fund convention, the Bill modifies the language used in Section 178 of the 1995 Act to follow more closely the wording of the treaty.
	The Bill also provides for a power to make secondary legislation regarding air pollution from ships. It does so by amending Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so removing a doubt on the current scope of that section. The secondary legislation would implement Annex VI to the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as the MARPOL Convention. Here again we are seeking to implement domestically what we have already negotiated internationally.
	The secondary legislation would apply the series of internationally agreed technical standards which forms Annex VI to UK flagged vessels. The aim of these standards is to reduce air pollution from shipping through control of emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and ozone-depleting substances. These pollutants have been identified as causing environmental degradation and damage to human health.
	Nitrogen oxides react with hydrocarbons at ground level to form ozone when exposed to sunlight; ground-level ozone exacerbates pre-existing lung complaints, including asthma, and has been demonstrated to increase rates of hospitalisation and use of medication. When released into the atmosphere, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides react to form acidic compounds. These can fall as acid rain or be deposited as dry particles causing localised acidic damage. Acid deposition in both forms can cause severe damage to forests and water bodies, and damage man-made structures.
	It is important to tackle emissions from shipping through internationally applicable technical standards. By 2020, the total number of ships worldwide is expected to be double what it was in 2000. This growth in the number of ships will be reflected in an increasing amount of traffic calling at UK ports and transiting UK waters. Generally, shipping is a friend to the environment, as I remarked at the outset of this debate, but there is considerable room for improvement in the atmospheric pollutant emissions from ships. Implementation of this annex would be a positive step towards greener shipping—and shipping, along with other forms of transportation, must play its part in improving the environment.
	Applying domestic legislation which implements MARPOL Annex VI would ensure that all relevant ships were certified, maintained and operated in accordance with the internationally agreed technical standards. I am pleased to say that the proposal to implement this annex of MARPOL has been welcomed by the UK shipping industry and marine engine manufacturers in their response to consultation.
	It is important for the UK economy that the UK introduce legislation implementing MARPOL Annex VI as soon as possible. If we do not do so, UK flagged ships will be at risk of detention or delay in ports of states which have implemented it. Needless to say, that could have a severe impact on the UK merchant fleet. Above all, it is important for the environment, of both the UK and the wider world where UK ships ply their trade, that the UK implement the provisions of the annex.
	The Bill will enable the Government to implement this by secondary legislation. Draft secondary legislation contains the detail of the regulations contained in Annex VI and will be made available by the department by the time the Bill reaches Committee.
	To sum up, the Government are determined that the UK should have the best possible financial and environmental arrangements available to protect our coastal interests from the effects of oil pollution from tankers and of air pollution from ships. Recent incidents in Japan, France and Spain have demonstrated that costs of major spills can far exceed the amount of compensation that is available under the existing regime. The £602 million available through the Supplementary Fund Protocol should ensure that in virtually any conceivable circumstances compensation can be paid promptly and in full. We wish to have this protection in place as soon as possible.
	The Bill will allow the UK to implement two important international treaties, which will have benefits both for the environment and for the financial protection of UK coastal interests. It is also important for the UK to be seen to be actively taking these measures, especially bearing in mind the prominent role which the UK played in negotiating these provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak from these Benches on this small but important piece of legislation.
	We support any measures that are designed to tackle the horrific environmental, social and economic effects of marine pollution. Oil slicks are no respecters of international waters and so, effectively, what we have before us today is an international Bill designed to bring the UK into line with efforts to tackle the appalling effects of oil spillages. Additionally, in the Bill, as the Minister said, there are measures designed to reduce the pollution emitted from shipping. Again, we support the intent behind such legislation. That said, there are important and pressing questions arising from the Bill, which I shall highlight today.
	Recent figures from the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation show that the number of oil spillages has reduced by around one-third since the 1970s. Significantly, incidents classified as large spills have reduced dramatically. That has been much to do with better crew training and the introduction of double-skinned hulls. Most spills from tankers result from routine operations such as loading, discharging and bunkering, which normally occur in ports or oil terminals. The majority of those operational spills are very small, with some 91 per cent involving quantities of less than seven tonnes. Accidents involving collisions and groundings generally give rise to much larger spills with almost one-fifth involving quantities in excess of 700 tonnes.
	Of course, no two oil spillages are the same. The composition of the oil, the location of the spill—far out at sea or near land—and the weather conditions are all relevant. When such a disaster does happen, as we all know, its impact is truly horrendous. Who can forget the awful images following the sinking of the "Prestige" off the Spanish coast a couple of years ago or, closer to home, the "Sea Empress" in Milford Haven in 1996, the "Braer" off the Shetland Islands in 1993, or, as the Minister said, the "Torrey Canyon" in 1967?
	Such incidents do not only have an impact in the short term; they can have a lasting effect for many years, indeed decades. The cost to maritime life, as we so dramatically saw with the "Exxon Valdez" incident, can be horrific and the cost to those people who depend on the sea and its surrounds can be equally disastrous. Fishermen, local hoteliers, restaurant owners and others along the Portuguese and north Spanish coast were all adversely affected, I remember well, following the sinking of the "Prestige" in 2002.
	Arising directly from this disaster and others in recent years, it was found that the existing structures in place to pay for the clean up and provide compensation were inadequate. Part of the problem, we are told, was the delay in providing such compensation given that the total cost of damage arising from an incident may not be known for many years. Indeed, to date, only 15 per cent of the total amount claimed following the "Prestige" disaster has actually been paid. For that reason, many felt that the existing structures were unable to cope and a new fund was set up. However, perhaps for one moment I may play devil's advocate. Surely, rather than creating a new fund it would have been better to have reformed the existing one—the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. What thought was actually given to reforming this fund, speeding up its mechanisms and increasing its financial worth—which, we have heard, is inadequate—so that it was able adequately to cover the increasing costs of modern oil spills?
	Moving on to the new fund itself, we are told that it would make available an additional £440 million or so—the Minister increased that figure—and that that amount would be made available by the major oil importers internationally, rather than falling on national budgets. Would the money be collected now and kept in a central pot or would it be collected only in the event of a spill and distributed when claims for compensation had been assessed and validated? If that is the case, I cannot see how the administration of this new fund differs dramatically from that of the old one.
	Indeed, there appears to be no guarantee that the fund will be able to compensate adequately and quickly. Will the Minister comment on that? What would happen in the event of two simultaneous major oil spills—would there be enough money in the fund to cover such circumstances? We are told that the supplementary fund would provide £440 million—although I stand corrected after what the Minister said today—on top of the £162 million in the existing scheme. However, when we are dealing with a major oil spillage with a cost of clean-up and compensation that may run into billions, one wonders whether the amount is actually sufficient.
	I would also be interested to learn what response the Government received to their consultation paper issued in December last year from the British shipping industry, notably the major oil importers. In particular, has the Bill before us today changed in any way following that consultation? A three-month consultation period does not appear terribly long in the great scheme of things. I hope that the department was not simply going through the motions.
	The crucial matter in this Bill is the number of participating countries that have signed up to the new fund. The Minister mentioned that there are existing members and others will join later this year. The remaining countries of the EU will join over the course of the next year or so and I learnt from the department that both Canada and Australia are likely to join shortly. However, what about the large number of countries that have neither signed up nor have any plans to do so? We have a large number of flag of convenience—or open register—countries, including those with significant registered tonnage, that are party to the old fund regime but not to the new one.
	I am learning that the world of international maritime legislation moves as fast as a slow boat to China and that countries are not going to sign up overnight, but with such notable absentees, surely the whole scheme could be undermined. Indeed, the two countries with the largest registered tonnage—Panama and Liberia—are notable by their absence. What would happen if a major oil spill occurred either in the waters of a country that had not signed up to the fund or to a vessel registered in one of the absent countries? What action are the UK Government taking either unilaterally or through the vestiges of the EU or the International Maritime Organisation to encourage more states to sign up to the supplementary fund?
	Also, why has the UK's own ratification taken so long, since the protocol was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May 2003 and the European Council decision that urged member states to ratify the fund by June 2004? There may be technical reasons for this delay and I appreciate that the department consultated, but I would welcome the Minister's explanation for the delay.
	As the Minister said, the Bill will also allow for further legislation relating to the pollution compensation regime to be passed through secondary legislation, subject to affirmative resolution. We are also told that the Government are currently conducting a review of existing instruments to,
	"redress the balance of financial contributions between the shipping and oil industries and to provide for a number of administrative amendments which may otherwise threaten the operation and effectiveness of the international regime".
	If the Minister cannot answer me today, I would be grateful if he would write to me to answer further questions that I have and explain further details of this review, its intent and its time frame. I would also be interested to learn why and which existing pieces of legislation,
	"threaten the operation and effectiveness of the international regime".
	As the Minister said, the Bill also includes measures designed to tackle air pollution from shipping by introducing the process required to ratify Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. We support such a measure but I wonder about the reasons for the delay in the UK's ratification process given that the convention was originally agreed to in September 1997. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that. Will he also provide full details of each MARPOL annex and the proposed draft regulations relating to Annex VI and confirm that they will be available by Committee stage? I would also be interested to learn whether the Government have consulted the British shipping industry on this measure. If they have not, will the Minister give an assurance today that they will do so?
	We have been told that secondary legislation is being prepared to allow the ratification of Annex IV. What is the time frame for ratification of this particular annex? I make the same point that I made earlier about the supplementary fund. It is all very well for the UK, a handful of other wealthy European countries, the United States and Canada signing up to these international treaties, but if we do not have those countries with large registered tonnages, the whole thing is effectively worthless. Air pollution is obviously no respecter of international borders. Therefore, there is a danger of older, more polluting vessels simply being registered in countries not signed up to such conventions, rather like the trade in old passenger planes being recycled for use in the third world because they do not meet strict European or American air pollution regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could tell me exactly which countries have signed up to each particular MARPOL annex and what steps the UK Government are taking to encourage more to join.
	As I mentioned, we are happy to support the legislation before us today. However we have one criticism, which is that we think the Bill is rather reactionary in nature, dealing with the worst effects of an oil spill after it has happened. Although we are all agreed that anything that assists and speeds up the nature of conservation is to be welcomed, that does not of course stop the incident happening in the first place.
	Surely such measures as are outlined in the Bill would sit more comfortably with a more proactive and preventive approach from the Government. Perhaps the Minister would therefore like to outline the Government's strategy for stopping such incidents happening in the first place.
	There was talk some time ago of banning single-skinned tankers from entering EU waters. Do the Government still support such a measure, and if so, at what stage are the negotiations and discussions?
	We support the intent of this Bill. We can support it here at Second Reading and we will support it during the Committee stage. However, as I have tried to outline today, there are a whole host of questions and issues the Bill raises. I hope as the Bill moves through this House some of those questions will be answered.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we too support the Bill as far as it goes. It is probably a rather timid Bill dealing rather slowly with events which have been creeping up on us as the amount of shipping using our waters, and of international shipping, increases. As I understand it, it deals only with serious oil leaks and some air pollution from some ships. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I am concerned about what happens to oil which is leaked from ships belonging to countries—or flying the flags of countries—which are not party to the protocol and convention.
	Have the Government any idea whether such ships should be detained in port or in the ports of signatories to the protocol and convention if incidents take place? Will they be detained until such time as they meet the compensation which is their liability? I would be interested to know whereabouts ships could be detained and whether the people who do not sign up to the convention and protocol are going to be obliged to provide compensation. If not, they are trading goods but making other people pay part of the costs of doing it.
	There is a great temptation for people not only to sell ships to countries which do not apply these protocols and conventions, but to flag out to such regimes. It would be sensible for the countries which sign up to deny access to their waters and ports to ships from countries that do not sign the convention by some date. If not, we have trading on two separate levels and obviously there are always people who will take advantage of lower levels.
	Although the Minister touched on this question, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to the fact that, in the case of the "Prestige" disaster, after three years only 15 per cent of the compensation has been paid out. I will gladly admit that many people will make claims which cannot be—

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as far as that is concerned, I think that the Spanish and French Governments have met the remaining 85 per cent. Is that right? It is totally unsatisfactory that it should be left to the two governments to bail out the difficulties which have arisen.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, if what the noble Lord says is true, it is something of a disgrace. Whoever has caused the pollution has not paid for it and has allowed other people to do so. So far as the affected coastlines are concerned and the devastation to the lives of fishermen and the tourist industry, people wish to move as quickly as possible at least to clear up the mess; the mess gets worse the longer it is left.
	If this legislation is to have any teeth it must be on the basis that either you join the club, pay insurance and belong to the protocol, or you do not join the club. I am therefore anxious that when the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, winds up this debate she tell us whether the Bill is intended to apply sanctions to people who, after reasonable time, have either not taken insurance or not contributed to the fund which is available.
	There is another matter that I would like the Minister to address. I have referred to this Bill as a tiny Bill. It is dealing with some problems. They are the sorts of problems which hit the headlines, but if my figures are correct—I stand to be corrected—over the past seven years there have been something like 500 serious pollution incidents in British waters. I believe that only 10 of these have gone to court.
	I would like to know how easy it is to detect pollution and why so few cases come to court. Are there further defects in maritime law which need to be attended to and to which we should return as soon as possible to deal with what is a serious problem? I want to underline the fact that, as the Government tighten up the domestic laws relating to the disposal of rubbish in this country, the temptation to those who are going near or over the edge of the law is always to dump the odd load over the side rather than pay what will be increasing charges to clear away refuse while they are in port.
	In winding up our debate, I would like the Minister to try to attend to those matters. As I have said, this is a small Bill to which we will happily give our support but it is an area which is a concern to most of us. With that, I give the Bill Godspeed.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I rise briefly to give my support to this important measure. In doing so, I am conscious of the fact that sitting to my right is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who has great experience in such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who is to follow me has many years of experience of dealing with MARPOL Conventions. For that reason, I will keep my remarks fairly short.
	I certainly welcome the first part of the Bill, which has measures to speed up compensation and to provide more compensation for major oil spills. Something has been said by previous speakers about the horrendous effects of large pollution incidents, but we should bear in mind that the amount of pollution from ships is still far smaller than the amount of natural pollution that comes from seepage into the sea. It is not the enormous problem that some people believe it to be.
	Nevertheless, when such incidents occur, they are extremely worrying. It is also import however that the general public should be reminded that we rely for everything we use in this country on sea travel in some form or another—about 93 per cent of all the goods that we receive, use and eat comes by sea. Sea travel is very important to this country—it would be, naturally, it being an island.
	I hope that, this year, the events connected with the bicentenary of the death of Nelson and the Sea Britain campaign will help to educate the public on the importance of sea transport. Horrendous though those major pollution incidents are, they have to, I believe, be accepted, if people are to be able to go to the petrol pumps and fill up their gas-guzzling cars whenever they want to or go to the supermarket and buy a huge range of goods from the shelves.
	The Bill is part of a slow process of measures to alleviate the problem; to cut down on pollution incidents; and to see that, when they occur, the pollution is pegged speedily. I take great comfort from the fact that the chief executive of BP Shipping, speaking in Oslo at a conference last week, said that his company would rack up its measures to improve safety as regards possible accidents and environmental pollution. BP already has a very good name in the business, and the fact that it wants to go even further is encouraging.
	The second part of the Bill deals with the ratification of Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, it has been in preparation for some time, and ship owners have had a lot of time to look at the problem. If I remember rightly, it come into force last month, on 19 May.
	Sulphur emissions from ships are growing, as has been said. Global trade is growing, and we are faced with more and more ever-larger container ships, some of them capable of carrying more than 9,000 containers—and there are even larger ones in the pipeline. Those ships are driven by engines approaching 100,000 horse power that pump out an awful lot of emissions. Ships account for 4 per cent of global sulphur emissions and 7 per cent—slightly more—of nitrogen emissions. This measure is part of a small step to start reducing the sulphur and nitrogen content in marine fuel.
	I know that the whole business of moving the maritime world forward, with regard to these conventions, is a worry to many people—including Friends of the Earth. But I fear that we must move slowly, and I deprecate the unilateral action that some states sometimes take to move things forward faster. We must all try to move at the same pace.
	I mentioned the shipping companies, which have been looking at the situation for some time. In fact, only last year, P&O fitted a device to one of their ferries running across the English Channel between Dover and Calais—something called an eco-silencer, which is designed to cut sulphur emissions by 95 per cent and nitrogen oxides by 80 per cent. BP is also looking at something similar, and other shipping companies are looking at other measures. There is also the question of reduced sulphur content in fuel. I know that the shipping community is not necessarily agreed on that yet, but there are several different ways in which to approach the problem. The maritime community is not unaware of its responsibilities.
	Incidentally, the technique used for eco-silencers is called "scrubbing" in general terms, which alludes to the fact that sea water is brought into contact with the emissions to transfer the sulphur oxides from the gas into water, thereby resulting in sulphate, which is a natural component of sea water. That is further filtered to remove particulates.
	Looking ahead from that, in part of my work outside the House, I have worked for the past 15 years with the Port of Los Angeles. Over there, they are quite far advanced in the business of trying to cut down pollution, which is a major problem. Last year, almost a year ago to the day, they unveiled the first electrified container tunnel. Ships enter it when they come into port, shut down their main engines and generators and plug into shore power. They say that, where the west coast of America leads, the rest of the world follows. I am sure that that is the case—and I am sure that, as the years go by, we shall see more and more use of shore power in ports. Certainly, the shipping companies are aware of that and are working towards it. The process in that case is known by the rather strange name of "cold ironing". That is something that we must watch in future; I believe that it will come in more and more.
	I have one word of caution on the conventions. I draw a parallel with the question of parking in London; over-zealous petty officials, in order to make money out of it, sometimes upset a lot of people. There is a slight danger that that tendency might creep into the maritime business as well. We have already seen some incidents in the past couple of years in which the French have been slightly over-zealous in seeking out pollution from ships.
	This is an ongoing business, and of necessity a slow one. We should all like to speed it up, but nevertheless we are making a useful start. I am sure that more developments will come in and will be taken note of. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have spoken in many shipping debates with the noble Lord, and at one time I was a parliamentary under-secretary responsible for companies, aviation and shipping. I look back to those days with some degree of pleasure, but also apprehension because we had a large number of shipping incidents and casualties at that time, as I am sure noble Lords will recognise.
	I also served as the chairman and then the president of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea—or ACOPS. That body has long been involved in the principal issues involved in this Bill. I am glad to say that I was also ensconced with NUMAST and the European Union in relation to transport issues. In more recent times, ACOPS has played a major role in determining long-term trends affecting operational and accidental discharges at sea, and seeing how control and prevention measures can be affected. What ACOPS has established beyond reasonable doubt is that human error is by far the most significant element in pollution incidents. That is borne out by the annual reports which ACOPS has published, and which are relied on by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
	In no way do I seek to undermine the record for constant vigilance about the handling and transportation of oil around British coastlines, but the facts speak for themselves. Internationally, during the 1970s, there were on average 25.2 per cent tanker spills of more than 700 tonnes. That is what I was referring to earlier. The average decreased to 9.3 per cent in the 1980s, 7.8 per cent in the 1990s and, so far, in this century, the figure is reduced to 3.8 per cent per annum. As a result of the mandatory phasing out of single-hull tankers and the implementation of a regulation banning the carriage of heavy grade oil in single-hull trawlers of more than 5,000 dead-weight tonnes, the situation will probably be much improved. There is no room for complacency, however, as the following amply demonstrates.
	Port state control inspection shows that one in 12 foreign vessels inspected in the United Kingdom is unseaworthy, and has to be detained. That is unforgivable. Across Europe the position is even worse: almost three-quarters of ships inspected suffer severe deficiencies. Moreover, the United Kingdom Marine Accident Investigation Branch deals annually with about 1,500 accident and incident reports. Recently the UK MAIB has found
	"a worrying number of merchant ships involved in collisions or near-misses".
	This is utterly unacceptable.
	Only a few days ago, a container ship and a general cargo ship collided in the Channel. We have not heard about that in this debate, but it was immensely damaging to the shipping industry. That is why I have argued for eternal vigilance.
	Human issues remain the primary cause for concern. Fatigue; unsafe manning; the falsification of work records; the failure, all too often, to provide a dedicated lookout on the bridge: these can all be dealt with, yet they continue to be a plague that blights too much of our shipping industry.
	It follows that when the Bill is fully implemented the provisions that ensure adequate arrangements for the future protection of our marine and coastal industries are vital. Also, the UK will be able to participate fully in any future changes in the international regime governing oil spill compensation and address the issue of atmospheric emissions from ships.
	Before I turn to the Bill itself, there is an important issue I should mention. There is, unfortunately, a marked decline in Britain's maritime skills. This was emphasised a fortnight or so ago by a Government report that Britain's officer skills base is likely to be halved over the next 15 years. What are we doing to address this problem? How will we ensure far greater investment in British maritime training? These questions must be answered, not only by all sections of the industry, but also by Government.
	The view often rehearsed by environmental groups is that the shipping industry has been used as a "waste management system", burning the dirtiest fuel and failing to ask questions about environmental cost. In other words, what they often do represents a good way of getting rid of residual fuel oil.
	Improved control of emissions from ships should be part and parcel of the battle against acid rain, which affects nature in northern Europe and health and property in southern Europe. Its effects are indivisible. It is therefore high time that Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention should apply. Indeed, there is real hope, following the second reading of Europe's marine fuels legislation, that even more stringent European controls will be enacted in the future.
	Uncertainty as to the best way of achieving emissions from ships continues to reign. There is a patchwork of regulation, and equally a patchwork of solutions. The tanker "Prestige", which has been referred to in this debate—registered, I stress, in the Bahamas—sank off Spain in November 2002. Seventy-seven thousand tonnes of fuel oil were spilt, affecting areas from Vigo in Spain to Brest in France. Our Dover coast was also affected. As I pointed out in an intervention, only 15 per cent of claims have so far been met internationally, leaving the Spanish and French Governments to meet the remaining 85 per cent. That is totally unsatisfactory.
	The "Prestige", and other incidents, point the way to taking a vessel casualty to a safe haven and ensuring that salvage is undertaken in conditions of relative safety. We are not only talking about ships, but about people who sail in them, and about coastal communities that may be affected. They must not be forgotten in this debate.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, marine Bills do not often come before Parliament, and it is with an almost complete lack of up-to-date knowledge that I dare to speak today. I say "up-to-date" because I never returned to sea after taking my Master's Certificate of Competency in the late 1960s, and ceased hands-on involvement a few years later. However, former colleagues have been extremely kind in filling me in on what happens nowadays, and for that I thank them. In those days, we had experienced, well qualified and dedicated officers and crew, who would look after the safety of the ship and other seafarers before themselves. Nowadays, in many instances, the opposite applies.
	The Bill before us is excellent, as far as it goes. There are other forms of marine pollution, however, about which most people are ignorant. Some affect this country, others do not. Some would consider them minor, but in totality they can be fairly major. I ask indulgence if I mention some of them.
	An empty bulk carrier or oil tanker arriving at a port to load a cargo will, in order to reach that port, have taken on some water ballast. That ballast regularly contains marine life alien to that port and country and will be discharged when approaching the loading port. The implications are not to be sneezed at.
	I am led to believe that last summer, at low tide in Williamstown, Australia, hundreds of north Japanese sea-star crowded onto the piles and sea bottom, no doubt demolishing the mussels that normally grow there. Port Philip Bay, on which Melbourne is situated, now has about 156 exotics. And what about the thoughtless throwing away of plastic bags, string and nets, which can and do end up around the necks of seals and dolphins?
	I quote part of an e-mail that I received from a former colleague:
	"My considered opinion is that most marine pollution is caused by the ever increasing under manning of ships and the employment of third rate and cheap seamen. Any engineer worth his salt—and those that aren't—will simply bypass the oily water separators because they haven't got the time to stand by its operation. Provided schedules are maintained, most ship owners couldn't care less about pollution".
	I would add to that, "unless the ship owner is fined".
	Vancouver reduced its oil-spill response costs a couple of years ago from $11 million a year to $3 million by employing people to put string seals on all outboard valves when the ship arrived in port. Consequently, any spillage will break the string seal, and the offending ship is fined. What a simple method.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has already said that west coast USA and Canadian ports, among others, are supplying power to ships—which, in turn, can turn their supplies off—in order to reduce greenhouse emissions in their ports.
	There is the problem of oil discharged from ships finding its way to the bottom of the sea, leading to the destruction of living organisms. I would love to give further examples of pollution that have been provided to me, but at least I have referred to some that might provide food for thought. Oil pollution is not the only pollution emanating from ships. It would be marvellous if the compensation fund was not necessary, but it is and, therefore, I support the Bill.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill seems to be fairly uncontroversial and to be welcomed to the statute book in due course. Unlike the Road Safety Bill that we discussed last week, I have received no lobby material on this Bill. That probably constitutes a form of bill of health.
	Marine accidents, oil pollution of seawater and of the air by marine engine emissions are all unwelcome and have to be dealt with at an international level. Therefore, it will be necessary for many countries to sign up to the two agreements contained in the Bill. Will the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate please tell us which other countries will be the co-signatories?
	Oil contamination will always be a difficult crisis to solve on the shore and in the water but at least there will be available greater sources of funding to carry out most of the work. However, I presume that while the beaches and coast will be cleaned up, there will not necessarily be compensation for the tourism and hospitality value lost because of the pollution and its aftermath. I refer to the belief that the place is permanently polluted.
	It seems to me as though the liability fund and the MARPOL agreements are in place. I believe that the supplementary fund, and its £600 million, is new and is derived from oil importers rather than shippers. I believe that Annex VI of MARPOL is also new.
	It is good to see the maritime industry getting its act together on pollution. It is a great pity that no such international co-operation is forthcoming on air pollution by civil aircraft. The Bill is not about civil aircraft but it shows that progress regarding pollution can be made. I suppose the difference is that the pollution caused by civil aircraft is not as obvious as an oil spill; that is, with the exception of pollution caused by an air crash and traffic jams on airport approach roads.
	My noble friend Lord Bradshaw rightly drew our attention to the question of the adequacy of the funds. It would certainly be unfortunate not to have to hand sufficient funds to deal with a pollution incident, most of which are accidental. He also drew our attention to the danger of dumping rubbish overboard—that is, precisely, jetsam—rather than in the port where, admittedly, greater cost is incurred for disposing of rubbish—a curious problem caused by higher environmental standards.
	My noble friend also referred to the Bill's lack of teeth in dealing with ships that are outwith the schemes, going so far as to mention sanctions for recalcitrant owners. As regards tankers flagged by nations outwith the scheme, can I presume, like my noble friend, that it will still be possible for oil pollution to occur without a compensation system being in place? I refer to resorting to extensive legal action in that regard.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, drew attention to the widest economic effect of an oil spill beyond the obvious clean-up work. He also questioned the ability of the funds to deal with several incidents in a year. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, reminded us that the sea is polluted by seepage from land sources as well as from oil tankers and offshore installations. He informed me at least of the scale of marine emissions, mentioning the reality of engines of 100,000 horse power capacity. The noble Lord mentioned the benefits of shore power in Los Angeles for container ships. As someone who lives beside Scotland's largest coal-fired power station, it occurs to me that wherever electricity is used in Scotland, it is generated near me. Unless the authorities in the Los Angeles area have a very green source of electricity, I wonder whether they are not simply transferring the problem from the port to somewhere else.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded us of the ubiquity of human error as opposed to equipment failure. He also mentioned the very poor state of some vessels currently being operated and the difficulty of doing anything about that. He complained about the decline in the UK's complement of Merchant Navy officers and seamen. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, reflected on a career at sea that he might have pursued and reminded us of the biological effect of water ballast from alien environments.
	I note that the Bill does not by any means deal with all forms of sea pollution. For example, the Norwegians complain about radio-active isotopes being found in the fjords, having escaped from Sellafield.
	The Bill seems to be a step in the right direction. I hope that many countries will sign up to the supplementary fund and to MARPOL. Clause 3 is a useful clarification of the claim period—a generous three years and, I hope, a realistic period in which to establish how much damage has been done by oil pollution and how much its clean-up will cost. We on these Benches wish the Bill well. We look forward to the Grand Committee procedure.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it falls to me to wind up on behalf of our side of the House on this small but significant Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation of the contents of the Bill and, more significantly, of its implications for the shipping industry and, indeed, for international maritime operations generally. It was a welcome explanation that helped to clarify our thinking.
	We have had a very useful debate in which a number of questions were raised, some of which were raised by several speakers and some of which were raised once only. I shall touch on those points and raise a few of my own. We shall then probably have spent just short of two hours debating three pages of legislation. I am immensely glad that the Bill is not 150 pages long, as some have been recently.
	My noble friend Lord Hanningfield raised an important point about the fund regarding how it will be contributed to. Will it be contributed to annually in advance or only after a disaster has occurred when the funds are called upon? It is very important that that question is answered. The other points that my noble friend raised were mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. What action is being taken to encourage others to sign up to the scheme? What about those in what I call the "flags of convenience" industry? Do they have to sign up to the scheme? If not, what sanctions exist to prevent unsafe shipping continuing to operate? We heard something about that from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, if my memory is correct.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, introduced an interesting concept with the electrified container port—as he called it—in Los Angeles. I hope that he will forgive me if I am slightly sceptical; it is an extremely good idea and it removes from Los Angeles the pollution that the port otherwise generates. However, if the electrification is of a coal-fired power station in northern California, all that does is to shift the pollution in form and type from one location to another. If it is a coal-fired power station it might be worse than the maritime engines running on fuel.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, there are nuclear power stations around the world where there is not so much pollution.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we are now getting into another issue. I agree with what the noble Lord said, but the majority of power stations around the world are not nuclear. That is a brutal reality. We need to be aware that some of these issues are not straightforward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made particular reference to the human aspects. When men go to sea in ships they put their lives at risk if the conditions go wrong. We need to keep that in the back of our minds. It is particularly relevant to the "Prestige" disaster, which was an unfolding story. It was not, as so often occurs, an instant disaster because of particular weather conditions that ran the ship ashore; it unfolded over three or four days.
	It was an old single-skin ship, fully laden, going northwards past Spain. The crew realised that they were in trouble. They sailed towards Spain, hoping to be able to make a landfall and, if necessary, offload the ship. They were prevented from going ashore and forced out into the deep water again, where the ship broke up and sank. Three or four weeks later the oil started to come ashore.
	Whatever the subsequent cost to those onshore—it was undoubtedly high even though there are funds set up under earlier conventions and now under the Bill to enhance that situation—it would have been much cheaper and made better economics for them to accept that ship ashore, place booms around it and contain any leakage until they had emptied it, even though that might have been an expensive business.
	One of my concerns about the establishment of these funds is that in such a situation there may be a temptation for a country to say, "Well, if we accept this ship on our shore and unload it we will have to pay the bill, whereas if it goes back out and sinks in deep water then the international fund will pay the bill". I have the greatest sympathy for the people who have to deal with such difficult decisions and we have the great benefit today of looking at the "Prestige" disaster with hindsight.
	However, I hope to receive an assurance from the Minister that such a situation would not arise and that, if an emergency of the "Prestige" type were to occur in future, the recipient country would be able to call on the fund. Although there had not been a disaster, action would have been taken to prevent one, which would be a proper use of the funds. I am not clear from either the Bill or what I have read about the background that such a situation would be covered.
	This is a welcome upgrading of the existing legislation and conventions that govern these matters at sea. It has to be hoped that the funds provided for the foreseeable future at any rate will be adequate. Ships get bigger and disasters therefore inevitably become greater. I can envisage the time, as the Government have clearly have had the foresight to do, when some change might be required. That will be dealt with in future through secondary legislation by positive resolution, so it will be properly considered by both Houses of Parliament, which is welcome.
	It must also be welcomed that an expedited procedure for such regulatory improvement exists in the Bill. I am glad that the Bill is here. It will lead to an improved situation. We have had a good debate around many issues, and many questions have been raised by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and other noble Lords. If the Government are unable to answer them immediately it does not matter, because they always have the opportunity to write afterwards. I am sure that we will all look forward to lots of interesting correspondence and interesting debates on the Bill at later stages.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, last week when we were considering the Road Safety Bill my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham said, in his charming, self-deprecating way, that he was a glorified amateur. Your Lordships have in front of you now someone of an even lower order, who is an enthusiastic amateur. My credibility for leading on this Bill comes down to my good old uncle Nick, who was a merchant seaman.
	This has been a small but perfectly informed and knowledgeable debate on an issue of immense importance both to our country and internationally. My noble friend set out the Bill's principles and in the main noble Lords have welcomed its thrust, although I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, think that it is a timorous beastie.
	I shall briefly underpin some of the issues surrounding the Bill's two sections on compensation and air pollution. Then I will go on to respond to noble Lords who have asked a number of salient questions. I will answer where I can and write to noble Lords where I cannot or if I run out of time.
	The Bill's provisions relating to oil pollution compensation will greatly improve the protection we can give to those who may suffer the consequences of tanker disasters. Of course we will do all we can to create the conditions and regulations needed to prevent shipping incidents happening in the first place, including preventing the operation of substandard shipping—to which several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. But we must accept that the sea can be a dangerous environment and accidents will occur from time to time, some regrettably near our coasts.
	When they do, we must ensure that the communities and businesses that have to bear the brunt of a major oil pollution incident are not left having to suffer the trauma of needless difficulties in recovering their legitimate costs. We have seen here in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, reminded us, how the public purse has had in the past to bear some of the costs arising from oil tanker incidents when the existing fund has been overstretched. We have seen compensation problems elsewhere, and the Government are determined to ensure that we provide our citizens and our coastal environment with the best possible legal and financial protection that is available. We will, of course, continue to press for the international regime to develop further, so as to remain effective in responding in all circumstances to oil pollution from tankers.
	Implementation of those compensation provisions now before the House will, I am sure, soon be complemented by the Government's efforts to implement a framework of the other maritime liability agreements that have already been negotiated. They will further protect our coastline from other marine pollutants and offer financial protection for passengers on seagoing ships. On air pollution, it is important that the UK implements Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. The UK played a key role in negotiating that annex at the International Maritime Organisation. Major oil spills are a rare occurrence, but atmospheric emissions from ships are constant. The new international standards and requirements are important because they will help to reduce air pollution from ships trading worldwide, and cleaning the atmosphere around the UK's shores and harbours would assist the Government's commitment to controlling climate change.
	The UK coast is interspersed with both large and small ports. The large ports are mainly concerned with internationally trading ships such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers and cruise ships. The smaller ports deal with passenger and cargo ferries and fishing vessels and are predominantly used by domestic trading ships, although some have international trade routes to the European continent. That can result in many ship movements per day. Clearly, if such ships were required to make less polluting exhaust emissions through the use of cleaner fuels and improved technology, the air quality around UK sea ports, and hence around the UK coastline, would be improved. In addition, it would help to address concerns over air quality in major UK ports, where the high concentrations of trucks, ships and heavy industry can cause notable and localised reductions in air quality. Those measures will incidentally contribute to the reduction of trans-border air pollution carried from the UK to the European continent by the prevailing westerly airflow.
	It has been assessed that the projected reductions in sulphur oxide emissions from all vessels in UK ports and UK waters equate to an annual reduction of £3 million worth of material damage to buildings and structures in the UK, with one third of the benefits in the vicinity of UK ports. A reduction in air pollution from the marine industry will assist the Government to meet our EC partnership commitments in the EU strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships. Human health benefits are also to the fore. In coastal and port communities, human health benefits will result from the reduction of localised pollutants such as low level ozone. It is estimated that implementing MARPOL Annex VI will result in 20 fewer deaths and a £26 million reduction in associated economic loss annually.
	In particular, I emphasise that the Bill will enable us to make legislation to regulate air pollution from UK flagged ships wherever they are located in the world, but we do so in a manner that is wholly compliant with international law and ensures a level playing field for UK industry. That will have the effect of protecting both the environment and human health from the impact of air pollution from ships. Shipping is an international industry, and the implementation of agreed international standards is the appropriate manner to regulate it. That measure will allow us to maintain such an approach.
	I will rattle through the questions asked by noble Lords as quickly as possible to get as many answers in as possible. In his excellent contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked about ships' waste being discharged into the sea. The UK already has regulations in place that implement MARPOL Annex V, which concerns ship-generated garbage. The UK has other regulations in place that require UK ports to have reception facilities for all sorts of ship-generated waste and that require ships to discharge their waste unless specific conditions apply.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, also asked whether the Government had consulted British shipping industry interests. The United Kingdom delegation to the IMO consulted widely and worked closely with the industry in playing a full and active part in securing international agreement on those new measures and the subsequent addition to the MARPOL Convention. The industry has also been widely consulted about secondary legislation. The noble Lord went on to ask why we have delayed in ratifying the convention. There have been a number of parallel EU directive considerations on air pollution. In the light of the current high profile of atmospheric emission issues, the UK considered it prudent to ensure that related matters were taken into consideration when developing the legislation that was required to ratify the convention. We are confident that the proposed secondary legislation will accommodate those additional considerations.
	The noble Lord also asked what the oil industry's response was to public consultation on the Supplementary Fund Protocol. The oil industry supports the implementation of the Supplementary Fund Protocol as part of the overall review of the regime, and it was represented at the diplomatic conference that adopted the protocol. The noble Lord also asked why it has taken the UK so long to give effect to the Council decision. This is the first opportunity that the UK has had to secure the powers in primary legislation necessary to implement the Supplementary Fund Protocol.
	The noble Lord also asked whether it would be better to reform the existing regime rather than to introduce a new regime. The UK was one of the first states to press for revision of the existing regime. That led to the setting-up of a working group to review the present regime. The most pressing problem was the potential shortfall in available compensation. Other reforms are being discussed, and the UK is pressing for further necessary revisions. We continue strongly to support the revising of the underlying regime to complement the supplementary fund. In short, we are doing both.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the ratification of the MARPOL annexes. We welcome his good sailing for the Bill and the welcoming points that he raised on it. Ratification of MARPOL Annex I to II entered into force on 2 October 1983 and the number of contracting states was 131. MARPOL Annex III entered into force in July 1992 and the number of contracting states was 116. MARPOL Annex IV entered into force on 27 September 2003 and the number of contracting states was 101. Annex V came into force on 31 December 1988 and the number of states was 120. The MARPOL protocol 1997, Annex VI, came into force on 19 May 2005 and there were 23 contracting states.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was concerned about flag states becoming parties to the regime. The supplementary fund does not rely on flag-state participation. It is also worth pointing out that the major flag states and the shipping industry supported the supplementary fund being set up. All tankers coming into our ports have to meet the compulsory insurance regulations and liability limits of the regime.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about ship-owner and cargo interests and share of the burden. He was concerned that those causing the pollution paid so little. He expressed concern about sanctions for lack of insurance. The international system is based on the balance of responsibility between ship and cargo. Lack of proper insurance will lead to a tanker being detained in the UK until effective insurance under the civil liability convention is put into place. In practice, such detentions are very rare indeed. The flag states support the insurance rights of the regime.
	The noble Lord also asked why so few cases came to court. The CLC fund regime is designed to avoid costly and time-consuming claims in court and to settle claims outside court. He also asks what happens to ships that do not contribute to the compensation system or that come from countries that are not party to the regime. It is an entry-into-port requirement that all vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo must maintain insurance to cover the liability under the regime. They must also have a state-issued certificate, attesting that suitable insurance is in place. Failure to carry a certificate is punishable by a fine of £50,000. A vessel may also be detained if it attempts to leave port.
	We very much welcome the contribution and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. We take note of his positive approach to the Bill and of his specific cause for caution in certain areas as we move forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also has great experience in such maritime matters and adds important substance to our deliberations. We listened carefully to what he had to say. He and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked about the share of compensation borne by states—for example, Spain—rather than by the regime. It is true that at present claims from the "Prestige" incident are being paid at only 15 per cent by the IOPC fund. The supplementary fund should ensure that in future the regime bears the full cost. The shipping and oil industries will pay. That is in line with the "polluter pays" principle to which the UK fully subscribes.
	In any pollution event, it is always important not to accept at face value the headline estimates of damages and costs. All claims have to be assessed to ensure that they fully meet the relevant criteria. The fund's criteria are more flexible than may be the case with many legal systems.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked some questions about the skills base. What are the Government doing to ensure the maritime skills base is improved and what are we doing to ensure greater investment for maritime training? I shall write to him more fully, but the minimum training obligation, which is a unique feature of the UK tonnage tax scheme, requires each shipping company entering into the scheme to recruit and train one officer trainee each year for every 15 officers in its fleet. The training commitment to that for 2004-05 is over 1,200. The maritime training scheme has been running since April 1998 and provides support for the training of officers and ratings. The current budget is £9.4 million per annum.
	My noble friend Lord Simon rightly raised many concerning incidents of pollution and we welcome his contribution. He draws attention to other forms of pollution, including ballast water and plastic bags. He asked for an e-mail response, which we shall endeavour to ensure he receives. The ballast water convention was adopted at the International Maritime Organisation in 2004. Currently, guidelines are being developed under the convention and by the IMO to try to reduce the damage caused by organisms transmitted in ships' ballast water, to which my noble friend referred.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, when summing up for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, asked which countries will be cosignatories of the convention. The Supplementary Fund Protocol's cosignatories are France, Spain, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Germany. They have already become party to the protocol and we expect other European Union states to join.
	On MARPOL Annex VI, there are 23 signatories, including Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Japan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Norway, Panama, Poland, St Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Vanuatu. I shall write to the noble Lord on the other questions that he raised.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, talked about coverage for granting a place of refuge. His view was that the international regime should pay. The international regime would pay for damage arising from a tanker like the "Prestige" being granted a place of refuge. I very much agree with him that granting such refuge is usually the better course in an emergency. I shall also ensure that the noble Lord has answers in writing to his other questions.
	In conclusion, each of the provisions in this small but important Bill is much needed. Each will contribute very significantly to improving the maritime environment and protecting the interests of the UK's extensive coastline and of our coastal communities. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	One aspect of the Bill will cause controversy, particularly in your Lordships' House: the Bill sets the threshold for "older person" at 60. As I cast my eyes around the Chamber, they alight on the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Is it possible that in one year's time he will be regarded as an "older person"? Certainly not. He is now and will be, as will many noble Lords, in the first flush of youth.
	The Bill is another first for Wales. Wales was first to establish a children's commissioner. The Bill will create the first commissioner for older people. However, there is another controversial matter that I should deal with at the outset—timing.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill was published as a draft for consultation on 22 March, before the general election. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the closing date for that consultation is today. I should add that the National Assembly is not due to debate the Bill and the report prepared on it by the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee until tomorrow.
	Let me attempt to address the concerns of those who may feel that we are jumping the gun by bringing the Bill forward at this time. Had the general election not intervened, we would of course have followed normal practice in subjecting the Bill to the full range of public and parliamentary scrutiny before introduction. The general election caused an inevitable reconsideration of the legislative programme. An early opportunity arose to introduce the Bill in your Lordships' House, and we felt that it was a sufficiently important measure that we should grasp that opportunity.
	The Government recognise that the early introduction has meant that the Bill is not as polished or complete as we would normally expect. Indeed, we have already identified amendments that we intend to table before the Bill is considered in Committee. We recognise that the public consultation, the brief consideration by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, the report of the Assembly subject committee and the Assembly itself may well give rise to further suggestions for amendments.
	To help the process of consideration in this House, we shall make available tomorrow in the Printed Paper Office copies of all the responses to the public consultation. That will give noble Lords time to prepare questions and amendments, if necessary, for consideration in Committee, when we shall be happy to debate them. We will consider them with an open mind. It should be borne in mind that the measures have been the subject of a number of stages of consultation, and we are confident that new issues are unlikely to arise. I can say that, as of this morning, almost 80 responses had been received to the consultation, all but three of which had been totally supportive of the Bill. However, should detailed consideration of the consultation responses suggest further improvements to the Bill, we shall also address those before Committee.
	I shall summarise what we have done so far and what we intend to do before the start of Committee stage. The Bill was published in draft on 22 March, allowing 12 weeks for responses. That period ends today. We shall make copies of responses available to Members of the House tomorrow. We shall also make available copies of the reports of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly.
	I hosted a meeting last week with the Wales Office Minister, Nick Ainger and the Assembly's Deputy Health Minister, John Griffiths, to provide further information on the Bill to Members of the House. The Assembly has brought forward to tomorrow its consideration of the Bill, which will take account of the report of its HSS Committee, and we will make a copy of its conclusions available at least a week before the start of Committee. The group of minor amendments that the Government have identified to improve the Bill will also be tabled at least a week before the start of Committee.
	I shall now turn to the Bill. The developed world is facing major demographic change. Life expectancy is rising, and fertility rates are falling. Some 22 per cent of people in Wales are aged 60 and over, compared with 20 per cent in England. In 20 years, those figures will increase to 28 per cent in Wales, compared with 25 per cent in England. Over the same period, the number of people in Wales aged 85 and over will triple to 85,000.
	People are living longer and healthier lives, but that longevity brings significant social and other changes that require effective planning and new approaches. In Wales, the Assembly has developed a strategy for older people, based on UN principles on ageing—independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. It was developed following extensive consultation through a number of stages. At each of those stages, it received overwhelming support from older people, their representative organisations and others.
	The Bill is the next logical step in the implementation of the Assembly's strategy for tackling the far-reaching social and other implications of an ageing population. The strategy was launched in January 2003 and provides a structured basis for the Assembly and other public bodies in Wales to develop future policies and plans that better reflect the needs of older people. It turns from seeing old age as a problem and older people as a burden, to a model of engagement and citizenship for all older people. Age stereotyping and discrimination will be tackled and positive images of ageing promoted.
	That is where the Commissioner for Older People will have a significant role. Research undertaken while developing the strategy indicated that, although steps had been taken to tackle issues arising from it, for some older people in Wales poverty was still a genuine problem, exacerbated by perceptions of age as stigmatising. People generally felt that older people were discriminated against in a number of ways.
	The commissioner will have powers and duties that are at least comparable to those of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, while taking into account the different situations and needs of older people. The commissioner will have three important functions: tackling age discrimination, promoting positive images of ageing and giving older people a stronger voice in society.
	The responsibilities of the commissioner will include influencing policy and service delivery; being a source of information, advocacy and support; safeguarding, enforcing, enhancing and promoting rights; and investigating complaints. As the Children's Commissioner does for children in Wales, the Commissioner for Older People will speak up on behalf of older people in Wales, helping to raise the profile of older people and increase awareness about their needs. The commissioner will be independent of government and the Assembly. He or she will also help older people to influence the way in which public services are managed and delivered in Wales, the better to meet their needs.
	The commissioner's general functions to assist older people in Wales will include promoting awareness of their interests; encouraging good practice in their treatment; promoting the provision of opportunities for them and the elimination of discrimination against them; and keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law affecting them. The commissioner will be able to review and monitor the arrangements for dealing with complaints, whistle blowing and advocacy of bodies that provide services directly to older people. In addition, he or she will be able to review the discharge of functions of bodies—for example, the Assembly, local authorities and the NHS—whose policies may have an impact on the lives of older people. Where other avenues of redress have been exhausted and wider matters of principle are involved, the commissioner may examine individual cases and, in certain circumstances, support individuals in making a complaint or representation.
	Other powers will include discretion to undertake research; to issue guidance on best practice; and to make reports to the Assembly on the exercise of his or her functions. The commissioner will be able to make representations to the Assembly about non-devolved matters relating to the interests of older people in Wales. The Assembly will decide whether to pursue them.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, Peter Hain, has made clear his willingness to meet Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, to discuss any non-devolved matter on which he may wish to make representations. We intend that the same arrangements would be available to the Commissioner for Older People.
	As I said, the Bill defines an older person as one of age 60 or over. That encompasses those who are entitled from age 60 to receive winter fuel and pension credit benefits, women aged 60-plus, who will continue to receive state pension until 2013 and those in the National Assembly's free swimming and bus pass schemes, which also start at age 60. We consider that that strikes the right age balance. A lower age limit would have significant implications for the commissioner's workload. If it were higher, we would miss an important and growing section of older people.
	The National Assembly will fund the office of the commissioner. It is not possible now to make accurate predictions, but we are working on the assumption that the commissioner will consume similar resources to the Children's Commissioner. Start-up costs, we think, will be of the order of £500,000 and, with a staff of about 30, there will, we think, be annual running costs of around £1.5 million. Should it turn out in practice that costs are higher, those, too, will be met by the Assembly with no new money from Westminster.
	I said earlier that we intended to table some minor amendments to the Bill before Committee. We will table those amendments and provide all the other information that I mentioned earlier at least a week before the start of Committee. That will give noble Lords the opportunity to reflect on them and prepare for a full debate in Committee.
	We intend to table amendments to clarify the commissioner's ability to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen, so as to avoid duplication and to enable the commissioner to share information with them.
	We wish to correct a discrepancy in the Bill that was drawn to our attention by the Welsh Affairs Committee. It concerns the commissioner's ability to assist an older person who has been placed for care or treatment in England in pursuing a complaint with the placing authority in Wales, such as a local authority or NHS body. Minor amendment is also required to enable the Assembly to issue directions, if necessary, requiring the commissioner to establish an internal complaint procedure.
	Should we decide that further amendments resulting from the consultation and from this Second Reading debate would improve the Bill, we shall aim to have those tabled in good time for discussion in Committee also. I assure the House that we are fully prepared to consider any and all suggestions for improvements to the Bill. If any noble Lords have questions about any aspect of the Bill, the policy that underlies it or the detail of how we envisage the arrangements working, I shall be happy to discuss them or to provide a written reply before Committee.
	This is an important Bill that has attracted huge support in Wales from older people and their representative organisations and from all parties in the National Assembly. I hope that we in this House can achieve similar consensus on the principles of what is a ground-breaking proposal to benefit older people in Wales. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, most of your Lordships would agree that, celebrating my 75th birthday next month—as I hope to do, God willing—I am reasonably well qualified to talk about the elderly and comment on the Bill.
	Cicero, one of the great conservatives of the Roman Republic, wrote a treatise on old age when he was about the same tender age as the Minister, which brings me, circuitously, to the key point underlying the Bill. We can now all expect to live longer and so many of us do that the proportion of the population aged over 65 has increased dramatically and will continue to do so, barring another Black Death or some other calamity.
	I must confess a liking for the Prime Minister's positive—indeed, spirited—approach to this,
	"unprecedented change in the fabric of society",
	as he describes the growing proportion of elderly in our communities in his foreword to the Government publication, Opportunity Age—Meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century. The Prime Minister writes:
	"An ageing society is too often and wrongly seen solely in terms of increasing dependency. But the reality is that, as older people become an ever more significant proportion of the population, society will increasingly depend upon the contribution they can make".
	I am glad that the Minister has caught the Prime Minister's mood in that foreword. The thrust of the entire document is that we must change our ideas about retirement and ageing and seize the positive opportunities. Out goes the early retreat to the golf club and in comes a stay at work to do what we can to pass on our skills and experience, if any. I am told that a million people already work beyond retirement age. I must say that it is an impressive document, but delivering its policy content across the Government and to the public at large will not be easy. I think that the Prime Minister would acknowledge that.
	A great deal of thinking and discussion about ageing population problems has been going on in Wales, too—and with good reason as, as the Minister said, 22 per cent of our current Welsh population is aged more than 65. There was a report from an advisory group on a strategy for older people titled When I'm 64 . . . and more, which I think owes a little to the Beatles' song. That was published three years ago and last year, there appeared a second report by the Welsh Assembly Government's advisory group on a commissioner for older people in Wales.
	Among the recommendations at the end of the second chapter of that first report is the earliest mention that I have found of the proposed appointment of an older persons' commissioner. The designation of a Minister as older people's Minister with an overall responsibility for strategy is another possibility mentioned there. But it is the commissioner proposal that has pride of place, probably because, as the report notes, in Chapter 2 paragraph 9:
	"There is considerable evidence . . . that all is not well for older people. There are problems of poor housing, poverty, poor nutrition, lack of opportunity for employment, education and leisure, inadequate transport services and dissatisfaction with health and welfare provision. People perceive an imbalance of power and influence and a lack of respect. Age is seen as stigmatising and it is perceived that older people are discriminated against".
	In short, there are painful inadequacies and regrettable but preventable defects in the existing system of care and provision for the elderly that require urgent attention before more positive policies can be successfully pursued.
	I detect behind the proposal for an independent Commissioner the strong feelings and influence of organisations such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, which have long been engaged with the plight of the elderly and to which we should be deeply grateful for their solicitude. So we now have a Bill to establish the office of Commissioner for Older People on much the same protective and authoritative lines as the Children's Commissioner. Thirty years ago, we might have established some kind of agency to achieve the same goals, but quangos are no longer in favour or fit for any purpose except fuelling bonfires. Commissioners are now the flavour of the month.
	A similar proposal was put forward for England in Private Members' Bills last year and the year before, but the Government have yet to accept it. They would prefer to rely on stronger central government co-ordination, with leadership from the Department for Work and Pensions, a powerful commission for equality and human rights, a forum led by the Chief Scientific Adviser to harness science and technology to the challenges of ageing, and assessment by the Audit Commission of local authorities' performance. The Audit Commission, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection are reviewing the National Service Framework for the Elderly and will report soon.
	All in all, the United Kingdom Government's paper contains a substantial programme to give a lead to a wide range of players. Noble Lords may wonder why the Assembly Government do not adopt a similar leading role rather than foist the responsibility on a commissioner. Why do they not appoint a vigorous young Minister to safeguard the elderly and promote their interests across the devolved areas of Assembly government? Why should that not suffice? I cannot answer that question fully but it is significant that there is a strong body of opinion among the voluntary organisations that there should be a commissioner, independent of all existing authorities, as the Minister said, and with the right critically to examine them, the Assembly Government included, if they fail to discharge their functions or give rise to complaints. Those organisations call for a champion to defend the rights and promote the interests of the elderly, which suggests that such considerations have not always been foremost in authorities' minds.
	The second of the reports to which I referred stresses the need to ensure that,
	"the successful candidate has a real understanding of, and empathy with, the life of older people in Wales",
	and that the selection and appointment process,
	"should meaningfully involve older people".
	There is there a real cri de caur-cri o'r galon, , as we say in Welsh—that the commissioner's first loyalty should be to those whose interests he represents. Some attempt to reflect that appears in the Bill.
	With regard to the detailed provisions, we are grateful to the Minister for accepting the situation whereby we already face government amendments. The Bill broadly follows the pattern set in the legislation that established the Children's Commissioner. Noble Lords participated in the passage of that legislation and are familiar with it. I shall note only the differences between the two pieces of legislation as I see them.
	First, more of the detail in the Bill, such as the terms and duration of the commissioner's appointment, is left to the National Assembly to sort out in secondary legislation. That increased scope for, and reliance on, secondary legislation is novel and may not find favour with all Members of your Lordships' House or the other place. It leaves a lot of loose ends that we could well tie up here. I hope that the Assembly has taken to heart the Richard commission's criticism of its scrutiny, or lack thereof, of secondary legislation and that it will discuss thoroughly such legislation as arises under the Bill and not pass it on the nod. I hope, too, that the Assembly will see sense in an initial appointment for five years, renewable for a further five, subject to high quality performance. The Minister will recall our debate on that point during the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill in the previous Session.
	Secondly, I note that the commissioner for older people will have the same powers as the High Court in respect of the examination of witnesses and the provision of information under Clause 9(7). If he is obstructed or treated with contempt, as described in Clause 10(2), he may issue a certificate to that effect to the High Court, which will deal with the matter appropriately. We had to fight for that procedure in the case of the ombudsman. I wonder what caused the Government's change of attitude.
	There may be some argument about the definition of an older person as a person aged 60 or over. The UK Government's paper refers repeatedly to "50 plus" and so do European studies on ageing problems, primarily because the difficulties of finding alternative employment seem to begin at that age. But I am inclined to leave that disputation until the Committee stage—similarly, the additional costs of setting up the commissioner's office, amounting to £2 million in the first year. Much could be done for the elderly with such a sum if it were spent directly on meeting their needs.
	We are reassured that the Bill has been generally welcomed in Wales but I cannot say more because the Assembly will not discuss the Assembly Government's Motion in support of it until tomorrow. I am assured that it will have Conservative support but I cannot anticipate the views of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, which have tabled amendments to the Assembly's Motion. Coupled with the fact that consultation on the Bill does not end until today and we do not have the Government's response to that consultation, our debate is a little premature, as the noble Lord acknowledged. But he has put the best face on it, and I accept that. The Bill promises to improve the lot of the elderly in Wales, of which I am one, and that is to be welcomed. It seems right for our times and for our circumstances in Wales.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, we on these Benches should also declare an interest in this Bill.

A Noble Lord: My Lords, not all of us.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: Indeed, my Lords, not all of us. We wish that we did not have to declare such an interest but, unfortunately, the years pass by uncontrollably.
	We welcome the opportunity to discuss ways of helping older people in Wales. The Assembly Government have done wonderful things already. Free bus travel was introduced for over-60s when the Lib-Lab coalition was in power in Cardiff. We also have free sports facilities, such as swimming pools. Free bus passes have not only helped older people but kept bus routes alive, so everybody has benefited.
	If the proposal for a commissioner for older people is realised it will be the first, not only in Europe, but in the world. As a proud Welshman I should possibly vote for it without any thought of suspicion or objection. We have an older population. In Conwy, where the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is from, and in my area nearly 27 per cent of the population is of that age group—and, of course, it is advancing over the years.
	I know that the Minister has explained to some extent why we are discussing the Bill prematurely but surely there is a massive lack of foresight. It is a mystery to me. The consultation process finishes today, and the plenary session of the Assembly will discuss and vote on the matter tomorrow. We seem to be in some strange area. I hope that we will have the results of the consultation tomorrow in the Printed Paper Office and that we will have the full results and the Assembly's decisions before Committee.
	We are also concerned that many matters in the Bill will be decided by regulations. An explanation is required from the Minister on when they will be available in draft. Will they be available in draft in Committee, or will there just be a statement of policy intent? We would like to know exactly where we stand on that.
	There was a time when, if anyone in Wales reached the age of 90, we put up the flags, called out the village band and had a massive tea party. It was wonderful. We would say, "Mrs Jones is 90 years of age". Now, it is not even a cause for comment. If someone reaches 100 years of age, we might put a note in the newspaper, but that is about all. Our people are living longer.
	It is possibly tremendous to look forward to living longer, but it brings its problems. Families are more sparse and perhaps there is no one to support the older person—for example, his or her partner might have died. So much is a disadvantage as one reaches the upper limits of that age range. People are living in isolation, which is a big problem. The families and contemporaries of a person may have gone and he or she is left alone. There is also the struggle to preserve dignity and a sense of well-being.
	We read of some instances of people in nursing or residential homes who are not well cared for. My experience is that most of those places do a first-class job. There are few cases of poor or cruel treatment. We hope that the commissioner may be in a position to look into those incidents. However, if I am right—the Minister can explain or clarify this—in Clause 4 the definition of a public service, whose functions are subject to review, is a body half of whose expenditure is met directly from payments made by the Assembly. Will any provider of residential services fall outside the scope of the commissioner's power of investigation? We would like clarification on that.
	Would the appointment of a Commissioner for Older People achieve its stated aims? If in any way it will, we must support it. If it will succeed where others have failed, it will have our support. The crucial question is whether the lives of the older people of Wales will be improved by this appointment. Could she or he act where the public services ombudsman cannot? Would extending the remit of the ombudsman, without establishing a whole new office, be just as effective?
	A few months ago Parliament amalgamated three ombudsmen in Wales so that there would be no confusion. People would be able to take their problems to a one-stop shop and not have to try here and there. Is the establishment of a commissioner likely to increase uncertainty and confusion? We would like an answer to that. What will be the relationship between the ombudsman and the commissioner? What will be the relationship between the commissioner and the proposed new Commission for Equality, due to start in 2006? What impact will the commissioner's work have on the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to older people? I am sure that the Minister will clarify those points. What will be the relationship between the commissioner's powers and the investigative duties that are already the responsibility of the Association of Directors of Social Service? That is another area that we need to be clear on.
	The cost of creating this new post, which is made up of 30 appointments, will initially be £0.5 million. Then it is estimated to be £1.5 million every year. Is that the best way of using that money? As the Minister has told us, the sum will come from the existing Assembly budget. There will not be an extra penny from the Treasury. Could that money be spent more effectively on providing other services for the elderly? Noble Lords will know of the Liberal Democrat aim to provide free personal care for the elderly, as provided in Scotland. Of course, £1.5 million will not meet that. But could some services that are not free at the moment be made freely available to the elderly?
	Could the money support voluntary organisations which are in the front line of working for the elderly—for example, the WRVS, Age Concern, local organisations for older people and carers' organisations, which, in my home area, are this week facing cuts in grant support? We know how the CAB has often struggled for financial support. Are we satisfied that the money could not be better spent in that way? Are we completely convinced that the present training courses and facilities for those who care for the elderly are as good as they could be? Would a bit more funding improve those courses?
	A big problem is that the commissioner will be able to deal only with areas of responsibility that are devolved to the Welsh Assembly. We have been told by the Minister that there will be an informal arrangement, which will make it possible for the non-devolved areas also to receive the commissioner's attention. We want more clarification on that. This could be a massive stumbling block when we come to vote on the Bill. Many of the complaints that older people have are about pensions, benefits and non-devolved matters. The CAB told me that last year, throughout the UK, there were 1.5 million complaints about pensions and benefits. Is it not crucial that the commissioner's remit include the ability to deal with those questions?
	We want to see a clear mechanism for the commissioner to contact Whitehall and Cardiff and a formal process of response. We would like the Assembly to be required to give a public response to any inquiry from the commissioner. Experience has shown that the informal mechanisms in place for the Children's Commissioner have not proved entirely satisfactory.
	We welcome the power of the commissioner to promote the development of effective and comprehensive advocacy, complaints and whistleblowing arrangements. However, we are concerned that the commissioner will have no powers to enforce any recommendations. We would like to see more protection for those whistleblowers reporting on practices which perhaps are not against criminal law, but which deny older people dignity—for example, the unacceptable treatment of an older person in a care home. There is now no protection in the Bill in an unregulated setting for the whistleblower.
	Finally, although we understand the impact that there would be on other legislation, if the definition of older people is changed to a younger age—say 50 or 55 years old—the advantage of having some flexibility would allow the commissioner where necessary to assist folk who are under the age of 60, perhaps regarding employment matters, health matters or people who have taken early retirement. For instance, in Wales, for many years we battled for rights for people who suffered from pneumoconiosis. If a commissioner is appointed—for example, as regards Alzheimer's, dementia and physical disability—is there not a case for him to have flexibility to deal with those instances?
	There are many questions to be answered. The Minister agrees that in Committee we will have our work cut out to discuss the amendments needed to make the Bill one that, in its essence, will make the lives of the older people of Wales more fulfilling and satisfying. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches look forward to further discussions and hope that the Bill will be of the sort that we will be happy to support.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, this Bill prompted me to reflect on more than 30 years of constituency experience and how the issues of the elderly were represented to us as Members of Parliament. Generally speaking—I hope that this does not sound complacent—in the constituency that I represented, I found that the voice and interests of the elderly were very powerfully represented in many cases through a wonderful variety of organisations and agencies that have worked with older people. I am thinking not only of Age Concern and Help the Aged, but also of the national Pensioners Movement, a powerful organisation capable of mobilising considerable support for its various causes. In no way should we consider this Bill as a measure which reflects badly on those agencies and organisations that carry out such a powerful job in representing the interests and wishes of older folk in our communities.
	I wondered why we would need a commissioner, but during the course of the debate the Minister has made a good case for the importance of the post. But what has convinced me to support the Bill is that the organisations I so admire because they represent and reflect the wishes of elderly people are fully in support of it. If that is what the consultation process has shown, I, too, can give the Bill my support. By the end of his speech I remain uncertain whether the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is in favour of it, but no doubt we will learn more in the course of our further debates.
	Rather than dwell on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on the context of the Bill, I want to ask a few questions about certain issues in the Bill that are not yet quite clear.
	First I turn to a point made by other noble Lords and referred to briefly by my noble friend on the Front Bench when he said that amendments are to be brought forward to this effect. How far does the commissioner's writ run? I refer not to the issues covered by the devolved government, but to the non-devolved areas of responsibility. Clause 2(3) empowers the commissioner to consider and make representations about any matters relating to the interests of older people. That is a pretty sweeping and general brief which presumably goes beyond the scope of the powers that have been devolved to the Assembly; that is, the commissioner can rove beyond those areas. But if he does so, what will it mean? For example—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—will the commissioner have the responsibility to consider or make representations on issues such as pensions, welfare, war pensions and the entire world of benefits? If he or she does, what will be his or her power in this respect? Will he be able to draw attention to these issues? Will the writ run in any effective way beyond the areas of devolved government?
	If so, that is a serious issue because these are UK Government matters covered by UK departments following UK policy as laid down at Westminster. Although the commissioner might offer a commentary on those policies, surely difficulties could arise if a commissioner entirely funded by the Assembly were to have some kind of extra-judicial or extra-territorial power over government departments which are accountable to the UK Government and Parliament. This point raises quite serious issues regarding areas of responsibility and accountability.
	Secondly, I turn to the question of the power to examine cases. I want to reinforce the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts: that of the relationship between this commissioner and the recently established ombudsman. For example, if the commissioner considers a case where an elderly person has been ill treated or has suffered as the result of an act of maladministration, who would pursue it? After the previous Bill we passed, I would assume that it would be a matter for the public ombudsman and not necessarily one for the commissioner. How is this to be defined? I gather from an observation made by my noble friend that the point is to be further delineated. Equally, I refer to the equality and human rights commission, a United Kingdom body, which will have the power to deal with issues of age discrimination. The relevant Bill is about to come before the House. Again, how will that relationship work?
	Thirdly, I turn to the appointment of the commissioner, a matter left entirely to regulation. While I support strongly the structure and framework of this Bill, and while it may seem that I am seeking the best of both worlds, I question leaving the appointment of the commissioner entirely to Assembly regulation. I do so for only one reason. The commissioner will have the right to scrutinise the National Assembly for Wales itself. If the Assembly is to conduct the process of appointment and ultimately make it, how can we ensure that that process will be safeguarded and consistent with the idea of the absolute independence of the commissioner? We had interesting debates on this point on the establishment of the public ombudsman, and the question arises again in the context of the Bill. I hope that during our deliberations on the Bill both in this House and in the other place, we will be given some idea of the Assembly's thinking on this issue and perhaps receive an assurance on the independence not only of the process of appointment, but also on the commissioner's subsequent position. That is well worth considering.
	Clause 14 provides the power for the commissioner to report and make recommendations. Will he also have the power to recommend a remedy in a case of the ill-treatment of an elderly person? If so, what kind of remedy is envisaged and what power will the commissioner have in responding to such a case? Again, the issue of overlap with the ombudsman and others arises here.
	These questions tumble from the Bill for one simple and basic reason. It is rather different from the Bill to establish the Children's Commissioner for Wales and I welcome it for that reason. In this respect I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. The Bill for the commissioner for children provided much greater detail on the functions and role of the post, but the Bill before us is much more a piece of framework legislation. Here we are maximising the right of the Assembly to make regulations and to fill out the Bill in ways that previous legislation did not.
	Does this Bill foreshadow the kind of legislation we are likely to see as a part of the further development of the devolution settlement? I say that because one of the fundamental recommendations of the Richard commission, set out in chapter 13 of his report, suggested that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament should draft Bills in a framework way so as to allow the maximum degree of legislative competence to be bestowed on the Assembly. I should declare an interest as a member of that commission and a passionate support of chapter 13. I believe that it is one of the most sensible ways of further developing the legislative process of the devolution settlement. Given that, I shall forgo the kind of detailed arguments we would normally have about what should be set out in the Bill if I can be assured that it does foreshadow the kind of framework legislation we are going to see. If that is the case, I shall certainly give it my fullest support. As I have said, I am a passionate supporter of that process. I believe that we will create a more effective and developing legislative partnership between both Houses in this Parliament and the Assembly. We would have a democratic legislative trinity: the Commons, the Lords and the Assembly.
	We will also be able to utilise and develop the scrutiny skills of Members of the other place and of this House, as well as the scrutiny skills that are developing, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, in the Welsh Assembly. We can maximise the democratic resources available to us to ensure that we get the best possible legislation. If that is the case, and this is the kind of Bill that we will see in future, I shall give it my strongest support.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I am pleased to be taking part in this Second Reading debate, partly because the Labour Party included the establishment of a Commissioner for Older People as a commitment in its manifesto for the 2003 elections to the Welsh Assembly. Through the Assembly, we have seen that the people of Wales want the commissioner.
	When the Bill for the Children's Commissioner for Wales was debated in your Lordships' House, we felt that it was good to be able to say that Wales was the first country in the UK to have such a commissioner. The Children's Commissioner for Wales was so well received that we now have children's commissioners in the rest of the United Kingdom. We can be proud of the fact that children's commissioners started in Wales and are such a good thing that everybody wants one. I am sure that that will happen when we establish our Commissioner for Older People.
	We had a briefing meeting last week in which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Wales Office, Nick Ainger, said that the Commissioner for Older People would be the first in the UK and probably the first in the world. That is why we are finding our way on a number of issues. There is no model: we are developing our own in Wales. We can all feel proud of the fact that Wales is once again leading the world.
	A number of noble Lords have said that Wales has an ageing population. A higher proportion of the population in Wales is over the age of 60 than in the rest of the UK, and the number of people over the age of 85 is about one-third higher. With people living longer, there will be a need for care and support services to enable older people to lead independent lives as far as possible. As other noble Lords have said, we have particular problems in Wales. Research has shown that, for some older people in Wales, poor housing, poverty and poor nutrition are particular concerns. But, as noble Lords have also said, on the plus side, people are living longer, and that is something about which we can all rejoice.
	With a Commissioner for Older People, we will be able to deal with many of the issues relating to older people and assist them to lead independent lives. In the briefing last week, the Deputy Minister responsible for older people in the Welsh Assembly Government, John Griffiths, said the commissioner would be,
	"A champion and a strong voice for older people"
	We used a similar remark when we were debating the Children's Commissioner, who has proved to be a champion and a strong voice for the children of Wales. If the Commissioner for Older People can be seen in that light, it can only be for the good. The Bill has much support in Wales from the charities and voluntary groups that provide for older people.
	Noble Lords have already spoken about the definition of what it is to be old, and we could debate it for some time. In the context of the Bill, the definition of "older person" is someone aged 60 or more. We know that sometimes the age can be as young as 50 or as old as 75. I can understand the difficulties of determining when one become an older person as far as the Bill is concerned. I am sure that all noble Lords have received the same briefing from the Law Society. It says:
	"A more pragmatic definition should be adopted to allow the commissioner discretion to help people aged 50 and over".
	It gives the reason that,
	"This would be particularly relevant in employment matters for people who have taken early retirement, and in health matters, for example those suffering the early onset of dementia and physical disability".
	As other noble Lords have mentioned, we have precedents in Wales for defining older people as 60, such as the free bus pass and free swimming schemes. There are also a few other precedents that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned. I am sure that we will discuss the matter later in Committee. Can the Minister say why older people are defined as those over the age of 60 and whether any thought has been given to having some flexibility in the definition?
	There are concerns that there could be some overlap with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which will be established by the Equality Bill that will have its Second Reading in your Lordships' House tomorrow. With that new commission dealing with age discrimination, the roles of the two bodies will need to be clearly defined. As we go through this Bill and the Equality Bill, we may be able to work out what the overlap is and how we can clearly define matters. I hope that, if there are any difficulties, we will be able to resolve them.
	I would like to raise Clause 12(1)(a) with the Minister. Concerns have been raised about it by Help the Aged in Wales. The clause provides that the commissioner will have the power to,
	"enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purpose of interviewing an older person accommodated or cared for there".
	It is not clear whether the term "private dwelling" includes care settings owned and operated by the independent or private sector or refers specifically to the individual older person's private residence. If the Minister could clarify that the definition of "private dwelling" meant the individual older person's private residence, it would help to alleviate the concerns expressed by Help the Aged in Wales.
	We all understand that the Bill is modelled on the legislation for the Children's Commissioner. When the Children's Commissioner was appointed, children were involved in his appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said. I believe that children interviewed the candidates and said who they thought was the best one. I know that we are in the early stages of this Bill, but does the Minister think that it would be a good idea for that model to be used and for older people in Wales to have a say in the appointment when the interviews take place? It would be great if that could happen.
	We have the makings of a good Bill, even though, as some noble Lords have said, it is bit premature. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed. It has been welcomed throughout Wales by the charities and voluntary groups that support older people. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to reading the analysis of the consultation, which ends today, that the Welsh Assembly has been conducting on the Bill. I am sure that that consultation will assist and inform us during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.

Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lucid explanation of the Bill and for arranging the helpful meeting with the Welsh Assembly Deputy Minister and officials last Thursday. I also wish to express my appreciation of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. They were very thoughtful contributions.
	I warmly welcome the Bill. It is of considerable importance to a great many people in Wales. As we have heard, it is also a unique development. It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is of interest far beyond Wales.
	The Bill is important for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious reason is the fact that there are about 620,000 older people in Wales. Secondly, it will help to safeguard the dignity of the older citizen and enhance his or her standard of life by ensuring that services are readily and equally available to every older person who needs them.
	The third reason, although this may not be so obvious at first sight, is that in many households the Bill should also bring help to the members of the family who care for a very elderly parent. Sometimes the carer himself or herself can also be helped. In such cases the Bill will help the whole family.
	For those reasons alone the Bill has caught the public eye. There is a wide measure of agreement in Wales in favour of a Bill along the lines of the present one, but it would, of course, have been the cause of some concern if the Minister had claimed that the Bill was perfect. Happily, the Bill does not raise any major political or philosophical question, subject to the very important point about non-devolved services to which my noble friend Lord Rowlands referred.
	Like the Children's Commissioner, the commissioner cannot directly pursue with Whitehall departments issues which call for a solution by those departments. There are many such issues, for example, in regard to social security benefits, employment regulations, the Inland Revenue, the DVLA and others. If the commissioner attempted to raise any of these issues with a Whitehall department he would be stopped dead in his tracks by Clauses 2(2), 9(2)(a), 13(2)(a) and 14(2). This is a fundamental point that has been raised on many occasions in your Lordships' House. I believe that there is a genuine difference of opinion which is symptomatic of a difference in philosophy.
	We heard from the Minister that the estimated annual running costs will be about £1.5 million. That is not a very large sum. I am slightly worried at the starkness of the advisory group's analysis of the scale of the problem—which is quite clearly with us in Wales for the present and, indeed, for the foreseeable future—yet the funding is limited to £1.5 million annually. I want to be fair to the Minister—I am bound to accept that that is the estimate put forward by the advisory group—but, given that the client group, if I may use that phrase, is very large, is there not a real risk that the office may not be adequately resourced to meet the demands on it? The Minister touched on this issue in his opening speech and has given us certain assurances.
	The commissioner will discharge many functions, but it seems to me that he will be primarily concerned with safeguarding and enhancing what is described in the Bill as,
	"the interests of older people in Wales".
	These words appear in about six different subsections throughout the Bill. Their meaning is defined in Clause 18 in these terms:
	"In considering, for the purposes of this Act, what constitutes the interests of older people in Wales, the Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Principles for Older Persons adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1991".
	I warmly welcome the fundamental duty defined in Clause 18. I recall how we endeavoured in vain to introduce a similar duty in the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001.
	I should now like to add to the questionnaire my noble friend will answer when he comes to wind up. My questions seek clarification and are designed to strengthen existing clauses.
	We must bear in mind that this Bill was requested by the Welsh Assembly. It is our duty to facilitate the passage of a Bill that has been so requested. Therefore, some of the questions which have today been addressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench should be addressed in the National Assembly and answered by National Assembly Ministers. It is not for us to question the fundamental principle of the Bill.
	In what circumstances will Clause 9 operate? Under the clause, the commissioner may examine individual cases of particular persons. Will he be acting on a reference to him by the elderly person himself or herself? If so, is there not a risk that his role and that of the public services ombudsman will be blurred? On the other hand, if the commissioner acts on his own motion, what preliminary hurdle will have to be surmounted before he will exercise this function? In other words, what is Clause 9 intended to cover? What is it aimed at? I invite my noble friend to explain the kinds of cases which may be examined and the circumstances in which the examination may be made.
	I turn now to Clause 12, which has been referred to by a number of speakers today. The clause defines the commissioner's right to enter premises and of interviewing in private. The clause excludes the right to enter a private dwelling. I confess that it is the subject of slight unease on my part. One day a real problem will arise where the commissioner will think that he ought to visit and interview an elderly person living or being cared for in a private dwelling house, who is deeply in need or thought to be in need of his advice, and who may not be able to express himself or herself on paper. I am concerned that in those circumstances the elderly person may not have recourse to the commissioner's help.
	I readily recognise that this may be quite a difficult problem. The Minister may confirm that the answer can be found in another statute. If so, it would seem that there is no difficulty.
	I welcome Clause 11, which empowers the commissioner, after consultation, to produce guidance on best practice. The case for a code of practice has, by now, been well made. But I note that the guidance does not have to be examined and approved by the Assembly before it is issued. I wonder whether that is wise.
	There are two other difficulties. First, in the Bill as it stands, the guidance will be without any legal significance. Secondly, the commissioner will not be empowered to monitor compliance with it. The guidance on best practice is potentially a very good device for helping the commissioner to bring about improved standards of service. It would be powerfully reinforced if it were to be given some legal significance, such as providing for the guidance to be taken into account by a magistrate or judge trying a civil or criminal case. The guidance would also be powerfully strengthened if it were backed by giving the commissioner power to monitor compliance with it. To my mind, those are worrying omissions. Unless they are addressed I feel that the guidance will fail to meet the high hopes that are placed in it.
	I have spoken for more than 10 minutes, which seems a very long time for a contribution meant essentially to say that I support the Bill. But the Bill did stimulate a few suggestions for strengthening the office and which the Minister may or may not wish to consider.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and informative debate and I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it has been very thoughtful indeed. He has looked very hard at the legal implications—or lack of them—in the Bill and I pay tribute to him for that. I have no wish to repeat what the noble Lord has just said, but the Minister should take due account—as I am sure he will—of his comments that some aspects of the legal force of the Bill do not appear to be adequate.
	As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno said, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill in principle. Some 660,000 people—22 per cent of the population—in Wales are over 60. As others have said, demography will change and in a very short time, 25 per cent of the population of Wales—in the region of 800,000—will be over 60. We have heard the forecast that that will go up to 28 per cent.
	There is no doubt that in principle the Commissioner for Older People is a very good idea. However, when one examines the Bill, comparison with the Children's Commissioner is not wholly sustainable. As have many have said in this debate, many UK policies impact directly on older people on a UK basis. That is especially the case with pensions, benefits and employment. In that respect, the Bill differs significantly from the Children's Commissioner Bill. There is more involvement of UK government departments.
	Pensions, benefits and employment are not within the scope of the Assembly or the Welsh Assembly Government. Those functions are crucial to the well-being of older people in Wales, yet the commissioner will have very little or no impact. That was said very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, whose excellent speech brought out many of these points.
	These points lead to other comments about the powers of the National Assembly combined with the timing of this Bill. I accept wholeheartedly the Minister's generous apology and the way that he has sought to correct the problem and let us have more information. It is clearly good that we are debating the Bill early in this Parliament, but the Welsh Assembly Government were not expecting to have this Bill coming here so early in the Session. Why is that? Reference was made to the public consultation not being quite finished, but we will get some of the information. However, it is a pity that we did not have before us today many cogent comments which, I am sure, have been drafted by many in Wales. The timing issue has, for the reasons stated, complicated this debate.
	However, surely the Welsh Assembly Government ought to be able to initiate and legislate by itself. It cannot do that because of weaknesses in the Government of Wales Act 1998 which did not give the Assembly primary powers to legislate. Primary powers would achieve a logical progression of the process, better informed debate in the Assembly and therefore better legislation. The issues of non-specific statutes in the Bill and a lot of regulation are not entirely satisfactory. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said about the framework issue and that it may be a new way of going forward. We must remember that paragraph 13 in the Richard commission report is really a halfway house. We should ask whether we would get into a significant tangle in the legislative process if there were a government with a different complexion in Westminster.
	The whole area of pensions, benefits and employment is vital. Speaking as a former MP, the amount of work done sorting out the problems of the elderly, as many noble Lords will know, is massive, working especially with CABs. The plight of pensioners is often financial. Indeed, injustices are sometimes legion as well. I certainly found that, especially in relation to women who had employment breaks. Sadly, many pensioners often end up very poor indeed. These are huge issues to do with the welfare of pensioners. For example, I can quote someone who was with the 8th Army in El Alamein who is now 85 and is suddenly confronted by not one but a multiplicity of benefit forms issued by the Inland Revenue.
	I also know of a widow with a pension, whose case I came upon, who, back in time, worked in an explosives factory during the Second World War and had her fingers blown off. She never received any compensation. We constantly have problems of that kind.
	The benefits hurdle is an obstacle course and many millions are not claiming entitlements yet are living in poverty. That is a huge problem which I am sure the commissioner will want to address. One knows of many cases of people in that situation; people who are not able to fill in the forms. Even though assistance is available, they are not actually connecting.
	In my own experience, having been put out of work at the age of 56, employment for older people is not an easy experience. Certainly, I did two years and then had to reapply for my own job because the body was privatised. I had to undergo a psychological test, which many people in the Chamber may agree that I needed. However, it was not a pleasant experience, I can assure you. Indeed, it was discrimination in one sense because I was awarded only short-term contracts all the time and I never knew when the sword of Damocles was about to fall, which it eventually did.
	Where is the commissioner's place within these problems, which are the purview of Whitehall departments—pension rights, benefit rights and employment rights?
	I declare an interest in several sectors in the state of the elderly. I belong to an organisation called Prime Cymru which helps people between 50 and 65 to start up businesses. We have a target of 40,000 businesses out of a population of 250,000 in Wales and we have created 1,000 new businesses in three years. I will not go into all the details, but they are absolutely fascinating, like finding one's own Welsh roots on the Internet and so on.
	There are problems, particularly within the care sector, where different standards operate, for example in local authority and private care homes. The commissioner will be able to address problems in local authority care homes, but in some instances councils have turned them over to BUPA, which has paid lower wages and asked for longer hours. As a result the quality of care has gone down. I am not singling BUPA out—the same is true of other bodies.
	The financing of private homes is very difficult because it is dependent on benefit and many homes have closed. In some instances couples have tragically been parted as a result of a sudden closure of a home. These are all issues which we hope the commissioner will be able to investigate. There are big problems within the elderly sector and in many cases the voluntary sector is picking up the pieces and doing extremely well. But the finance for the voluntary sector is very difficult as the funding is very often being reduced every year. I know that from experience through my involvement in various areas, in particular with a disabled club that has many elderly people. Dial-a-ride services, for example, are very difficult to keep going in rural areas.
	The commissioner should be able to get involved in many of these intractable problems. He needs investigative and enforcement powers to ensure that these measures are taken. We will judge this Bill in its final form, when we will take a decision—I hope a constructive one—on whether to establish a commissioner for the elderly. But we would like free care for the elderly, and we would like council tax to be replaced by a local income tax, which would reduce the poverty levels of the elderly. We believe that these policies would improve their quality of life.
	The key question is whether the creation of the commissioner will improve the quality of life for the elderly. If so, we certainly will support the Bill. If not, then we will have to have a think about it.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I start by echoing my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and thanking and congratulating everybody on the level of contributions that we have had to this debate in the past hour or so.
	It is an indication of how interesting the debate has been that so many questions have been asked. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I felt question overload developing; I stopped counting at the fifteenth question. As it is a beautiful evening and as people will not wish me to speak for 40 minutes to answer all the questions that have been raised—and I can hear my noble friend Lord Rooker saying "Thank goodness for that", as he is waiting to deal with three orders—I plan to go quickly through the contributions and then write to everybody with detailed answers to the very many questions.
	I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. The contributions have been both terrifically helpful and extremely interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, gave a typically polished contribution, welcoming the Bill and raising a number of issues that we will return to in Committee. We discuss the period of office yet again—perhaps we could just agree now that it should be the same as we agreed for the ombudsman and get something out of the way. The discussion raised some interesting questions which we will come back to.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked so many questions that I lost count—as did the people in the Box—but we have answers to all of them. He was asking about regulations and in addition to the memorandum that we will be submitting to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we shall make available before Committee stage a note on the intentions of the Assembly in respect of the exercise of subordinate legislation powers in the Bill. The noble Lord asked why so much of the detail is being left to regulations—he will see that the draft regulations and the Bill's provisions relate to an area of law which is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It is therefore appropriate for the powers to make delegated legislation to be vested in the Assembly. All subordinate legislation subject to this procedure is debated in plenary and not taken, as in the Commons, to a Standing Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked if any provider of regulated services will fall outside the scope of the commissioner. The providers of regulated services are subject to the remit of the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. The purpose of the commissioner is not to duplicate the work of the inspectorate. Private providers could not be added to the list of persons in Schedule 2 as they are not public bodies. The noble Lord asked if it would be better to extend the remit of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. The focus of the ombudsman is to deal with maladministration. The focus of the commissioner is much wider; he will be a champion with much wider powers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, and others asked why is there no commissioner for England and why we need one for Wales. The UK Government do not want, at present, to establish a UK commissioner for older people. There will be a new powerful UK Cabinet sub-committee on ageing policy which will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Its remit will be to drive forward the UK ageing strategy as described in Opportunity Age.
	A number of questions have been asked about the funding and the costs. We will return to these in Committee where I hope we may have some more accurate information. The size of the relevant client groups is similar for both commissioners. There are 674,600 people aged 60 and over in Wales and there are approximately 700,000 people under 18. The functions and powers proposed for the Commissioner for Older People closely mirrors those of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. It therefore makes sense that this proposed level of funding represents an appropriate estimate and that is why we are comparing the two costing centres.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked how we will ensure that the commissioner can follow up on issues on which he has issued guidance to ensure that the bodies concerned comply with it. The commissioner is empowered to issue best practice guidance under Clause 11. Using his supplementary powers the commissioner would also be able to publish this guidance, thus making it widely available to service users and interested parties. This in turn will help to raise expectations and drive up standards.
	Finally—that is, finally as far as I am concerned, but not as far as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is concerned—the noble Lord asked the question of how we ensure that joint working is enabled with the CEHR and duplication is avoided. I have a six-page answer to that question which I have absolutely no intention of reading out. I shall pass it on to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, after the debate.
	My noble friend Lord Rowlands welcomed the Bill, for which I am extremely grateful. He asked a number of questions, and was praised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for the perspicacity of those questions. Briefly I shall deal with one or two of them.
	The noble Lord asked, as my noble friend Lady Gale did, about the appointments procedure. The Assembly Government's Commissioner Advisory Group felt strongly about that. It considered that the model of involving children and young people in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner represented good practice, and that it ought to form the basis for the procedure to be adopted for the selection and appointment of the Commissioner for Older People. It recommended that the appointment process,
	"should ensure that the successful candidate has a real understanding of, and empathy with, older people in Wales".
	The group also recommended that it should meaningfully involve older people in the selection. We can give reassurance on that point.
	My noble friend Lord Rowlands asked about the relationship of the commissioner with directors of social services. Local authorities appear in Schedules 2 and 3. The commissioner will be able to review the way in which social services directors discharge their functions and the arrangements that they make for advocacy, complaints and whistle-blowing.
	My noble friend also asked about non-devolved matters. We recognise that a range of reserved issues are important to older people in Wales, including pensions, taxation, law and order and benefits. The commissioner will therefore be able to make representations to the National Assembly for Wales about any matter relating to the interests of older people in Wales, whether it is a devolved or non-devolved issue. The commissioner will be able to issue guidance on best practice,
	"in connection with matters raised relating to the interests of older people in Wales".
	That position is entirely consistent with the current constitutional context and mirrors the current arrangements for the Children's Commissioner. Using this Bill to bring about changes to the devolution settlement would be outwith its scope and entirely inappropriate.
	I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale for speaking so warmly in favour of the Bill. She raised the question of how it was decided that an older person was one who had reached the age of 60. The Assembly advisory group was undecided about what the definition of older people should be. It saw merit in setting the age for qualifications for the commissioner's help at 65, or 50, in line with the strategy for older people, and recommended that those two options and a compromise of 65, with discretion to help those aged over 50, should be put to public consultation. It was put to public consultation, and the listening assembly decided to set the age at 60. That pragmatic solution was agreed.
	My noble friend Lady Gale also referred to the briefing of Help the Aged. Clause 12 sets out the commissioner's powers of entry. That power would enable him or her to enter any premises other than a private dwelling to interview an older person accommodated or cared for there in connection with carrying out his function of review or discharge of function.
	I believe that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for his contribution. He raised a number of issues which I shall deal with well before the Committee stage. He expressed concern that the commissioner cannot pursue with UK departments issues that are not devolved. We recognise that a range of reserved issues are important to older people in Wales, including pensions, taxation and benefits. The commissioner will therefore be able to make representations to the National Assembly for Wales on matters relating to the interests of older people in Wales. I mentioned in my opening remarks the arrangements made between the Wales Office and the Children's Commissioner; I reiterate that those arrangements will apply in this case too.
	My noble friend also asked about the funding question, and whether £1.5 million is adequate. We shall be looking very carefully at that over the next few weeks and will hope to come to Committee with some more positive figures, although they will be linked to the cost of the Children's Commission, as we believe is appropriate and sensible.
	My noble friend also asked what Clause 9 was intended to cover. The Assembly will make regulations to allow the commissioner to examine the cases of particular older people in Wales in connection with his functions. The commissioner's power can extend to examining the case of someone who is no longer an older person in Wales—that is, somebody who has passed away before the Bill comes into force. The commissioner may also make payments to persons who attend or provide information, explanations or assistance to him in his examinations.
	My noble friend also asked in what circumstances Clause 9 would operate, and whether it would require a reference from the older person. A complaint will need to be made to the commissioner to initiate an examination. However, when the older person is not able to make the complaint, it may be made by someone on his behalf. That will be dealt with in regulations.
	That was a quick run-through of some of the questions that I have been asked. However, as I said at the start, I am conscious that there were a huge number of questions, all of which will be answered promptly. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive approach to this Bill, and for not giving me a hard time—as they might well have done—on the basis that we are having a Second Reading of this Bill on the day before it is discussed in National Assembly for Wales.

Lord Rees: My Lords, I wish to trouble the Minister with one further question, which he may want to deal with by letter rather than answering it tonight. The definition of older person in Wales says that that person is, "ordinarily resident in Wales". Here I declare a personal interest, which may be one that other noble Lords may want to declare. In other fields of law, a person can have dual residence; would that be so in this case, and what would the consequences be?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that is an extremely interesting question from the noble Lord, Lord Rees. I shall have to write to him about it, but I can promise him a prompt answer, as people always get from the Wales Office.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21 February be approved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the order seeks to replicate Sections 37 and 39 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. That fulfils an undertaking given by the Government at the time of the passing of that Act.
	The order contains important law and order provisions which will enable police to deal much more effectively with airgun and imitation firearm-related crime. Article 3 adds to the list of prohibited weapons at Article 45(1) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 any airgun that uses or is adapted for use with a self-contained gas cartridge system. It will therefore be an offence to possess, purchase, manufacture sell or transfer one of those firearms without the authority of the Secretary of State. The reason for prohibiting these firearms is that they can easily be adapted to fire live ammunition, which has made them attractive to criminals. The offence is punishable on indictment with a maximum sentence of 10 years and a minimum of five years.
	Controls already apply to these firearms in Northern Ireland, and the existing small number of holders will be allowed to retain them on certificate, as is the case in Great Britain. Arrangements will be made for the Secretary of State's authority to be issued to the small number of people involved.
	Article 4 will allow the Secretary of State to make any necessary consequential amendments to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, or to any other statutory provision, arising from any addition he may make to the list of prohibited weapons by virtue of the order-making power contained in paragraph 10 of Article 45 of the 2004 order. He may also make saving or transitional provisions in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 81 of that order.
	Paragraph 1 of Article 5 adds unloaded airguns and imitation firearms to the list of firearms covered by the offence, in paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the 2004 order, of
	"carrying a firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse".
	The offence currently applies to the possession of loaded shotguns, loaded airguns, or any other firearm, loaded or not, when possessed alongside the ammunition suitable for that firearm. Paragraph 3 of Article 5 adds the offence to the list of offences to which powers of summary arrest apply, set out in paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order of 1989.
	There are already controls on the misuse of imitation firearms, but the police must actually catch the person in the act of committing a crime before they can act. This new provision will allow the police to arrest and charge someone who is in possession of an imitation firearm or an airgun in a public place, if he, or she, is unable to show that he has for it a lawful purpose or reasonable excuse. The police in Great Britain already have the benefit of these important law and order provisions, and I am sure Members will agree that they should be extended to Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21 February be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this order to the House today, and for his clear explanation. We on this side of the House support the objectives of the order and the order itself.
	I have one question about Article 4, about which I am a little concerned. It says in the notes that the article
	"provides that the Secretary of State may make such consequential amendments to the 2004 Order, or any other statutory provision, arising from any addition he may make to the list of prohibited weapons by virtue of the order-making power at Article 45".
	It seems to me we are giving the Secretary of State a blank cheque here.

Lord Rooker: Well, my Lords, I have looked at that, and probably should have given an answer before the matter was raised by the noble Lord. The key word there is "consequential". I do not think this can be read in a wider context. The Secretary of State can make consequential amendments to other orders following the order-making power that is given here. Obviously, if I am wrong, I shall receive advice to that effect.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, and I accept it.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, these Benches support this order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2 March be approved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the main purpose of the draft Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 is to update and consolidate Northern Ireland law on local government audit, and to introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in England and Wales, through the enactment of Part 2 of the Audit Commission Act of 1998.
	This order seeks to extend the powers of local government auditors, and to bring Northern Ireland law into line with current best practice. In particular, the order will give local government auditors the right of access for audit purposes to information and documentation relating to district councils that are held by third parties, and authority, when auditing the accounts of local government bodies, to make a report in the public interest on any matter coming to their attention in the course of an audit. It will also enable the chief local government auditor to commission value-for-money studies within local government.
	The order will also introduce a number of miscellaneous provisions to enable district councils to engage in emergency planning, retain receipts from fixed penalties levied for littering and dog fouling, and regulate businesses carrying out cosmetic and semi-permanent skin colouring.
	When I met officials the other day, I asked whether the regulation of such businesses replicated the English legislation. They showed that they had done their homework—they knew full well that when I worked on the legislation in this place, when I was at the ODPM, I came armed with my catalogue of sophisticated body adornments. That night I chickened out of listing the parts of the body that can be used, but I did say that there is no body part that cannot have a sophisticated body adornment attached to it. This can cause problems, and therefore there is a need to regulate businesses carrying out this kind of operation.
	On behalf of the public, I commend the order to the House and I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2 March be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear and enjoyable explanation of this order, and I support it. I will not ask to see the pictures.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it would have been helpful had the Minister been able to give us further information about that.
	We support this order, but I have a question on Article 29. I would be grateful if the Minister could help, or write to me. This article gives district councils powers to make emergency planning arrangements with other bodies or persons to prevent or to mitigate the effects of any emergencies that might occur in their areas, and to implement those arrangements should any emergencies occur. I would like clarification on "in an emergency situation". Surely that depends on what the emergency is. Is the Minister able to clarify roles, especially the role of the police in emergencies, and especially in Northern Ireland?
	I simply ask this because I remember, as a county councillor many years ago, being in on a clash of the Titans over who had primary responsibility in an emergency. It was during the time of major flooding in my county, and there was concern over who had primacy for direction of that emergency. We need to be clear who is in charge. I believe district councils in Northern Ireland are smaller and perform slightly different roles than in England and Wales.
	Otherwise, these Benches support this order.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will seek to answer the points raised by the noble Baroness. Several aspects of the Q and A here relate to Article 29 with regard to emergency planning.
	Local authorities have already been carrying out emergency planning. It is a discretionary power. The lead responsibility falls to the Department of Agriculture—sorry, I am going to get that wrong. It is for the councils to co-ordinate, and they will be co-ordinated by the government department, but I will have to come back to the noble Baroness, as I have too much information here.
	Obviously there is an issue over grants for emergency planning, which are made by the Department of the Environment to district councils for emergency planning purposes. There are some issues, but this work has already been going on. I cannot see any substantial difference within the new arrangements. Emergency planning is a slightly different issue from dealing with emergencies, but I had best come back to the noble Baroness with a precise answer to the question she has asked.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Direction given on 1 April 2005 by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, regarding Reduction of Financial Assistance

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the direction laid before the House on 4 April be approved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the direction made under Section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 made on 1 April by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Member for Torfaen, and laid before this House on 4 April, be approved. It gives me no pleasure to bring the direction before your Lordships' House tonight, but it is necessary.
	The direction took effect on 29 April and removed Sinn Fein's entitlement to the financial assistance payable to Northern Ireland political parties for 12 months from that date. The approval of both Houses of Parliament is, of course, required. I understand that the House of Commons will deal with the issue later this week. The background to the direction will be familiar to your Lordships so I can be brief. However, it may be helpful if I summarise the key events before turning to the substance of the direction.
	The direction follows the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission that was laid in Parliament and published on 10 February—I believe that it was the fourth report—on the Northern Bank robbery and other crimes that it attributed to the Provisional IRA. The Independent Monitoring Commission's report stated that Sinn Fein must bear its share of responsibility for the incidents to which it referred, and it recommended that the Secretary of State should consider exercising the powers he has in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly to impose financial measures on Sinn Fein; that is, a financial penalty.
	The matters that lie behind the direction have been debated here on a number of occasions. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a Statement in the other place on 11 January in the immediate aftermath of the Northern Bank robbery. My noble friend the Leader of the House repeated that Statement in your Lordships' House on the same day. The Statement set out the impact of the robbery on the political process and the damaging effect that it had had on the Government's efforts to restore the devolved institutions.
	The then Secretary of State made a further Statement in the other place on 22 February after the publication of the Independent Monitoring Commission's report on the Northern Bank robbery. He said that, having reflected on the commission's report, he had concluded that it would be appropriate to make a direction to remove Sinn Fein's entitlement to financial assistance. The direction would be for 12 months, the maximum permitted under the legislation. As required, he would take into account any representations made by Sinn Fein before reaching a final decision. The Statement was repeated in your Lordships' House the same day. Having provided Sinn Fein with an opportunity to make representations, the then Secretary of State decided that it would be appropriate to make a direction, and, as I said, he did so on 1 April.
	Your Lordships will know that there was a further debate in the other place on 10 March on the Government's Motion to suspend Sinn Fein's entitlement to Westminster allowances for 12 months.
	I turn to the substance of the direction. It removes Sinn Fein's entitlement to payments under the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Scheme for 12 months from 29 April 2005. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the second such direction against Sinn Fein. A similar financial penalty was imposed for the period from 29 April 2004 to 28 April 2005, following the Independent Monitoring Commission's first report in April 2004. That report attributed an attempted abduction to the Provisional IRA, and the Independent Monitoring Commission recommended that financial measures be imposed on Sinn Fein.
	There was support in the various debates that I have mentioned for action to be taken. The need for the direction reflects the problems that have blighted the political process in Northern Ireland; that is, ongoing paramilitary activity, criminality and untold incidents of sheer gangsterism. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it absolutely clear that that has to stop and be seen to stop for there to be progress. As I said, it gives me no pleasure to have to bring the matter before the House. We very much hope that in the period ahead we shall see movement from the Provisional IRA that ensures that the final transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is achieved. That is our first priority, and it is our overwhelming desire.
	On the assumption that that movement occurs, there will continue to be an important role for the Independent Monitoring Commission in attesting that the reality matches the commitments. Moreover, the Independent Monitoring Commission has a responsibility in relation to all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, from whatever source it comes. It has published a more recent report on which the Government will pronounce in due course.
	I want, therefore, to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the commission for their reports and for the contribution that they make to promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. I commend the direction to the House.
	Moved, That the direction laid before the House on 4 April be approved—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement, which is really what it was. I welcome many of the words that he used. I am delighted to hear the tough words from the Government. Like the Minister, I am sorry that he has had to bring the direction before the House and that the position regarding Sinn Fein/IRA and the situation in Northern Ireland are as they are. Indeed, I was sorry that some time back Sinn Fein was granted the privileges that we are discussing. I argued against it on the sidelines but, as your Lordships know, that is the privilege of the Speaker of the other place and was nothing to do with us in your Lordships' House.
	We are where we are. I am sad that we are still where we are, but I welcome the action that Her Majesty's Government have taken in this respect. I also welcome the strength of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, this evening. I support the Motion.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we also support the Motion.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the direction tonight to make at least some point to Sinn Fein and its supporters that their activities and behaviour over the past couple of years have been beyond the democratic pale. Many of us hoped that Sinn Fein would move towards being a party supported, backed and operated in a purely democratic way. We were frustrated in that rather naive wish.
	Recent events, including the Northern Bank robbery, have painted a nasty and unacceptable picture of Sinn Fein/IRA's methods of fundraising through theft and money laundering. In the past few weeks, I have outlined to your Lordships' House information about Sinn Fein/IRA's activities, which are now becoming known as "white-collar terrorism".
	Money is of no object to Sinn Fein and its supporters. Four million US dollars were recently forthcoming from well meaning, if misguided, Irish Americans to what is widely believed to be Sinn Fein's intelligence-gathering operation in the Irish Republic, the Centre for Public Inquiry.
	I note that the former High Court judge, Fergus Flood, is happy to allow his name to be associated with the organisation. Yet, he has refused to question the organisation's chief executive on why he travelled to Colombia on false passports with a well-known IRA member to collect £2 million—a part payment to the IRA by FARC terrorists for providing training and expertise on bomb making. Mr Flood's silence is deafening and will not go unnoticed. I support the direction.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in support of the direction.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adoption

Baroness Barker: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in light of their consultation under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the provision of information to those who have been adopted, what issues were brought to light concerning those who are in care and how their needs for information and access to services have been considered.
	My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords who have agreed to speak in this debate. In particular I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whose presence makes it possible for us to have the debate.
	As can be deduced, not least from the brevity of the speakers' list, this is a very technical and small area of policy, but it is one of immense importance to an untold number of people.
	Some speakers may choose to focus their remarks on difficulties experienced by young people who have been in care since the passage of the Children Act 1989 and perhaps even in the light of the work being carried out to implement the Children Act 2004. However, in the time available to me I wish to concentrate on the legacy of care decisions made in the past on adults who are now much older.
	As noble Lords may have deduced from the Question before the House, this matter was inspired by the case of an individual who was in care as a child and whose subsequent attempts to find out what happened to him when he was in care have been met with such a lack of information that he now has good reason to doubt that the identity that he has is correct. He has no way of finding out whether what he has been told by the statutory authorities is true.
	This debate is not about seeking justice for an individual or commenting on individual cases. It is an opportunity to shed light on an area of policy and practice that has been overlooked: access to personal information and personal data for people who have been looked after and sometimes refer to themselves as having been in local authority foster care. In doing so, I want to examine the contrast between the rights of people who have been adopted and those of people who were in care, and to suggest some ways in which these anomalies could be addressed.
	The Association of Directors of Social Services in a briefing paper produced in 2000, entitled The Archiving and Destruction of Records for Children in Care/Looked After, provides a helpful historical summary of the legislative framework for record keeping about children who have been looked after during the past century. In that paper, the ADSS points out that requests for information or records of children in care differ greatly depending on whether they predate the Children Act 1989.
	Requests for information prior to that time usually come under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and the Adoption Act 1976. The main regulations that dealt with requirements were the Boarding Out of Children Regulations 1955, which set out the only requirements for maintaining individual casework records and registers. They remained in force until the Boarding Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations 1988, which came into force in June 1989. Those were then followed by new regulations under the Children Act, which came into force in 1991: SI 1991/890, which require local authorities to maintain records for children looked after by them until after their 75th birthday.
	From 1955 to 1989 there was a tremendous amount of local government reorganisation across the whole country. Perhaps the biggest and most significant was in 1974. Children's services were often transferred between different entities during successive local government reorganisations and records were lost. Given that employees or organisations come and go and corporate memory fades, my first suggestion to the Minister is that each local authority should now be issued with guidance that consolidates the responsibilities for record-keeping and retention and destruction throughout the past 75 years. Furthermore, that document should be available, together with a record of all the services in geographical areas for which any authority was responsible, combined with information about those other authorities that have assumed or relinquished those services when boundaries have changed. Such a document would enable people seeking information to understand the statutory requirements on each authority at given times and therefore to know what they can reasonably expect to find. It would also provide a basis on which staff currently responsible for data protection and retention could audit their present records. Such an exercise could form the basis of a review of record-keeping and the lessons learnt would be invaluable, as we are about to go through yet another huge reorganisation of children's services with children's trusts.
	The Data Protection Act makes a distinction between personal information and personal data. As I understand it, only personal data are accessible to an individual, and for personal information to be considered personal data it must pass a test. The information must be sufficiently biographical and it must affect a person's privacy in a personal, family, business or professional way.
	The information must have an individual as its main focus. A document that might have significant personal and private information has to have that person as its focus. If it does not, the person may not be entitled to see it. For example, a family casework file would perhaps not be determined to be personal data although personal data about an individual might be held within it. That distinction between personal data and personal information is frequently crucial to people seeking to find out essential points about their early life.
	Provision of information is not a simple clerical or administrative task. It is a difficult and sensitive issue that requires skill and judgment—one for which social care staff need thorough training. In the review of local authorities' information given being conducted by Bath, it has emerged that many people working in children's departments now are asking for training to enable them to deal with such tasks.
	If personal data are supplied by a third party in the expectation that they will remain confidential, authorities have no obligation to release the data unless the consent of the third party is obtained. Often authorities justify the holding of personal data by citing their common law duty of confidentiality to other parties; for example, birthparents. Statutory Instrument 2000/415 granted local authorities the right to withhold a care subject's data on the grounds that releasing those data is likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the care subject or to another. I ask the Minister whether the department will provide statistics on how many exemptions have been granted using that order.
	People who have been in care have a right to an independent appeal to the Information Commissioner when a local authority refuses access to their personal data. Will the Minister tell the House how many such appeals are made each year and how many are upheld?
	Third-party data usually include the very thing people want to know: the names and details of their birth relatives. Third-party data that impact on a care leaver's childhood and early development should not be withheld. If such data are withheld, that can be challenged on the basis of a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The case of Gaskin in 1989 and the MG case of 2002 have established that a proper balancing exercise must be undertaken when a third party's right to data privacy conflicts with the care leaver's right to know or understand his childhood or early development.
	The problem is that under current guidance a local authority is not required to tell an individual that information has been withheld or to give the reasons why it has been withheld. Therefore, many people will not be in a position to challenge an authority's conduct and bring an appeal to the Information Commissioner. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, people who were adopted will have recourse to an independent reviewing officer to establish whether their care files have been correctly managed. It cannot be right that we have two groups of people who have been in different types of care, which has had a similar effect on their lives, but they have completely different rights in law.
	Increasingly, research has been produced that demonstrates that the need to understand what happened to a person when they were a child is a life-long need. Many people who were adopted choose not to trace their birth relatives until a significant life event happens to them, such as the birth of their own children or the death of an adopted relative. Research from the Coram Family shows that 48 is the average age at which former care leavers seek information about their time in care. However, while the Children (Leaving Care) Act establishes welcome rights for children leaving care to have recourse to information about what happened to them in their early years, it relates only to people up to the age of 24. There is a generation of people about whose entry into care and what happened to them was cloaked in secrecy, and they have no right to go and find out who they are or what happened to them.
	As a result of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, there is now a robust system whereby people who were adopted and birth relatives can, with the consent of either party, find out what has happened to each other. The state no longer acts as a gatekeeper or a barrier to keep blood relatives apart. It is high time that in relation to looked-after children and former looked-after children the role of the state becomes similarly that of a facilitator. It is not for the state to determine family relationships. It is the role of the state to facilitate individuals to make choices for themselves about their family relations. It should be possible for intermediary bodies to assist former looked-after children to search for information about themselves and about their families. If intermediary bodies were given such a responsibility, the task would be independent of local authorities, and for people whose experiences of care were often horrendous that independence would be important. It would also enable the activity of tracing and establishing contact to be registered and regulated under the Care Standards Act, thereby ensuring that the quality standards that this House recognised as being important, such as the provision of counselling, could be upheld.
	The 2000 guidance to social services departments about how to implement the Data Protection Act 1998 is no longer available on the web. Will the Minister tell us why? Are there plans to make it available electronically? It does not bode well for the future development of good practice if it, or something similar, is not available. Will the Minister give the House an update on the proposals for changes to civil registration? I have here the mammoth document from the Office for National Statistics. I gather that the regulatory reform order has been dropped from the Minute Paper of your Lordships' House. The Government have been made aware of the deep concern that has been caused by proposals to introduce abbreviated birth certificates and the widely held fear that this will make it almost impossible in the future for people to gather patrilineal information.
	In the short time available to me, I have tried to demonstrate that an untold number of people are being denied access to information about themselves that all of us take for granted. It is time to ensure that we uphold our obligations under the UN Convention and the Human Rights Act by putting in place procedures that are fair and easily understood and are delivered to acceptable standards across the whole country. Voluntary organisations have increasingly adopted practices that reflect their understanding that their duty of care to individuals goes on long, long after the time when they were looked-after. It is high time that statutory authorities did so too and were given the resources to implement good practice. Put simply, in this day and age no one should be denied access to basic information about their own identity.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Barker for giving us the opportunity to shed some light on this small but important area of policy.
	I read recently that the number of children going into care is rising, that their age is getting lower, and that they are staying in care longer. I am afraid that I do not remember where I read that but, if it is true—I am sure the Minister will tell us if it is not—it means that in future there will be even more people who have spent a long time in care, who obviously will have been affected by it and who may need information in order to reconcile themselves with their background. It seems that that group of people are some sort of second-class citizens as far as rights to information and services are concerned, compared with their brothers and sisters—and they may be brothers and sisters—who have been adopted.
	This morning, I attended the memorial service for the late Lord Russell, at which my noble friend Lady Hamwee made a brilliant speech that really captured the essence of Conrad. Later in the service, a piece of Conrad's own elegant prose was read out, the subject of which was "know yourself". His reason for saying how important it is to know yourself—a subject on which we are all most expert—was so that one has the confidence never to let anyone do us down or write us off. Let us not underestimate the effect on the sense of identity of a person who has either been adopted or gone into care so young that he does not remember his parents or anything about the circumstances of his family life. Knowledge of those things is psychologically of great importance to the sense of self and to the ability to cope with whatever life throws at us.
	To illustrate that, let me tell your Lordships about two people that I know. Both of them were adopted, but the same issues are just as strongly at work among those who have been "adopted by corporate parents", as it were—by the state. Indeed, their life chances are worse, so they need more consideration and not less. The first example is one of my own brothers. I say that he is my brother because that is how I think of him. He is the child of my mother's much-loved sister who died in childbirth, so he is really my cousin. When I was three, my mother brought a new baby brother home and, as I was so young, I did not know that he had not come through the "usual channels". He was brought up as my brother, and two more siblings came along later in the normal way.
	None of us can remember when we first learnt that Uncle Jim was really his daddy. We knew from an early age that he was our cousin but he was also our brother. I do not know how my parents managed it, but they told us all the truth just when they believed that each of us was ready to deal with it. When my parents died, my adopted brother was as orphaned as we were. At my mother's funeral, he told how lucky he felt to have had such wonderful adoptive parents who dealt so sensitively with his needs. I have never felt that my brother had a problem with his identity. He is a remarkably well adjusted man with a happy marriage and family of his own.
	In stark contrast, someone else I know—not a relative—discovered by accident when he was in his late 40s that he had been adopted. It came as a bolt from the blue and shook him to his very foundations. It explained to him why he had always felt different from his siblings but never knew why. Fortunately, it reinforced in him the strong way in which he valued his own family life and the needs of his children, but it could so easily have gone the other way. Unfortunately, it soured his relationship with his older siblings, whom he felt should have told him about his background. I saw in him how a strong and well adjusted person can question absolutely everything about his life when confronted with such information about his own identity without any help or support from people who are properly trained. His is really a happy story because he has a good life and a lovely family of his own, but many do not have happy stories, and it is for their sake that we are questioning the Government today.
	There has not been enough research done about the lifelong effects of being in care. However, Kirton, Webb and Peltier did a file analysis of former care adults who had returned to the Children's Society for information. The analysis found that the needs arising from life in care were similar to the needs of those who had been adopted. Receiving information can have a profound emotional effect and practitioners need time to offer support in this situation. Post-care services for care-leavers are poorly developed in comparison with post-adoption services. The lack of a legislative framework is crucial. Counselling and access to information for adoptees is set in a legislative framework, but rights and services for those who have been in care very much vary from one authority or organisation to another. It is very patchy. There is a need for legislation and guidelines specifically for those who have been in care. Lack of publicity about the opportunities that are available for information means that many people are not aware of the facility for obtaining information at all. The dominant assumption is that the need for services lies with young adults, although, as my example shows, there are lifelong issues and it can come as a bolt from the blue to a fully grown person. There is a gulf between services for adoptees and services for former care adults. Without the recognition and development of a proper legislative framework, that will continue.
	There is no doubt at all that there is a rising need for information from people who have been in care. During the past six months, a survey was carried out by Goddard and Feast about what services and assistance local authorities and voluntary organisations provide to former care adults. The 80 local authorities that replied had received 1,729 requests in the previous year and applications were said to be increasing—we are not talking about just a few people. Twenty-one authorities said training was given to the people supplying those services but 47 did not train the staff for this very sensitive job. Fifty-seven offered counselling, but only 38 offered help with obtaining information about birth families to people who had been in care.
	Since the Children Act 2004, local authorities and voluntary organisations have duties to protect children and to co-operate with each other for the best interests of the children in their care. Because the responsibility of these organisations ceases when the child becomes an adult, there is a feeling that that is where their responsibility ends. However, as we have seen, there are lifelong issues. Unless there is a proper framework so that authorities and organisations are obliged to keep a corporate memory—or in other words, proper records about the family origins of these children—they will not be able to fulfil their information needs later. The population of social and care workers is so transient these days that one cannot rely on people remembering.
	It is also necessary for people to work together through the best multidisciplinary models to provide information and services that will help people in this situation survive after years in care. It has been found that it is usually only when they become young adults and start to make relationships, or even later—maybe at some life-changing point further down the track—that people start to wonder about their own origins which are clouded in the mists of time. We must ensure that people who have been in care have as much right as everyone else to such information, and that the framework is there to provide the information in a context of well informed and skilled counselling. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government have taken this on board and are planning to do something about it.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on bringing to the House a series of issues that I do not believe we have debated before and which carry very considerable implications for both policy and practice. I warmly endorse everything that she has said. The concerns and preoccupations of adults who were formerly in the care system about who they are and from where they came are natural, human concerns. They are every bit as strong and every bit as valid as the desire of adults who were once adopted to discover information about their birth parents and perhaps even to seek contact with them and with their wider birth families.
	The situation faced by adopted adults was one that we debated extensively during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act. We did not debate the comparable position of those who have lived some or all of their early years in the care system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, a previously looked-after adult has certain limited legal rights. Under the Data Protection Act you are entitled to see all information held about you by a local authority social services department. Many local authorities are not resourced to provide such information and many do not view it as a priority. Often files have been dispersed or lost and if they exist it can take a long time to get hold of them.
	Even after information has been assembled, there is rarely anyone available to sit with you and talk you through it. We should not underestimate how important that is. You may have built up your hopes about finding out something particular, but the answers may not be there. You may discover something that comes as a terrible shock, or you may find that the circumstances that brought you into care in the first instance were profoundly sad. To make such discoveries is, at the best of times, an extremely emotional process. The need for counselling and support from an experienced professional person should go without saying, but very often—in fact, more often than not—there is no such support available. That, of course, is primarily an issue of resources and manpower.
	There is a quite different problem, however, about the kind of information that you are entitled to access. Information that falls under the heading "third-party information" can be accessed only with the consent of that third party. Obtaining that consent can often be a lengthy and tortuous business. Some agencies are simply not prepared to devote the time to trying to obtain it.
	There are some situations where, with the best will in the world, it is impossible to access information. I heard about one case where a woman, who had been in foster care since a very young child, believed, but was not certain, that she had been adopted by her foster parent. She wanted to find out about her birth family. In fact, she had not been officially adopted. As a result she was denied access to information. The details on the local authority files about her foster carer were deemed to be third party. The foster carer being now dead, no consent could be sought from her for the release of relevant data and the woman was unable even to find out her original birth name, let alone try to trace her birth family.
	That is only one case. We know from a recent study conducted by James Goddard at Bradford University that for the 80 local authorities which responded to the survey, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, there were over 1,700 requests in the previous year from former care adults wanting to access information. Mostly those requests came from people in their 30s and 40s. More than a quarter of the local authorities said that they had no policy or procedure in place to deal with the work and over half said that they had no staff trained to do it.
	All of that bears out the statement of the noble Baroness that service provision in this area is patchy. The underlying reasons for that are a mixture of the obvious and the less obvious. I have referred to some of the obvious reasons, so perhaps it would be useful to look at some of the less obvious.
	We need to think not only about what the law says, but also about the way in which different people interpret their responsibilities under it. The governing principle of the Data Protection Act, that people are normally entitled to see information held about themselves but can see information about a third party only with the consent of that person, makes perfectly good sense in general. However, it is more difficult to apply in the context of families.
	A family that lives harmoniously together is unlikely to have many problems. In the case of a family that is separated by care or adoption, or where there is a conflict of different interests at work, the issues become harder. Information is often about, and of importance to, more than one family member. At the extreme end of the spectrum, it would be improper for an agency or a professional to override the rules of confidentiality by disclosing to a person who had been in care that his mother had had seven abortions before he was born. At the other end of the spectrum, little harm would usually be done by telling the person the nature of his father's job.
	In between the two lies a range of information, the ownership of which is unclear. For example, there might be medical information about difficulties that the mother experienced during pregnancy, which is clearly sensitive personal information about the mother, but potentially relevant to the son or daughter in enabling them to understand some factor about their early life or current state of health, or both. Can that be disclosed or not?
	On a simpler level, people who have spent long periods in care may not be aware that they have brothers or sisters who were born while they were not with their families. Agencies will ask themselves whether it is permissible to share that information with a person who is requesting data and, if so, whether the identity of the sibling needs to be withheld. In such situations, different individuals will interpret the rules in different ways. That cannot be satisfactory.
	When I spoke to the British Association of Adoption and Fostering about this issue, it mentioned another factor—the possibility that local authorities may fear repercussions for themselves, or disapproval from their insurers, if they disclose information that might enable a previously looked-after person to sue them. That is not common, but it has happened, I understand.
	If the Minister finds himself asking what he could do, the essential and basic message is that agencies need to have greater clarity about the data that they can and cannot lawfully disclose—particularly regarding "family" information. There needs to be national guidance on standards, policy and procedure.
	The second message is that the Government would do well to undertake more hard research about the lifelong effects of spending most or all of one's childhood in the care system. The information that is available points in one direction. Work conducted by the Children's Society has found particularly acute levels of emotional need among black and ethnic minority adults who were formerly in care. In particular, evidence suggests that individuals are more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
	After everything that I have read and heard about these issues, I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister that something must be done. There needs to be the same recognition of the needs of adults who were formerly in care as there is about the needs of formerly adopted adults. The legal rights of both groups should be on a par, including the right to independent review, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
	Resourcing such services properly will not come cheap, but improving the services that we have and making them fair and accessible, is, surely, the least that we can do for individuals in whose early lives the state has intervened in so radical a way.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising the critical issue of how best to ensure proper access to information and related services, not only by those who have been adopted but by those who have been in care. She said that the issue was technical but vital to many people. I agree entirely and, indeed, have had much personal experience of the care system that makes me only too aware of that fact. I wish to give a substantive reply to her points that will, I hope, enable us to take forward the debate on how further reform in this area can advance. I shall first respond to the particular terms of the Question, before addressing some of the wider issues that she, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, addressed.
	As your Lordships know, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 modernised the entire legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption, including the arrangements governing the management and disclosure of information relating to persons, once an adoption has taken place. Those changes have been widely welcomed. The new regime and the underpinning regulations come into effect on 30 December this year.
	The need for those previously adopted to know about their past circumstances is pivotal to their having a clear sense of their identity, and our reforms will, we believe, produce lifelong benefits for adopted people who receive that information. The draft regulations covering the disclosure of information about a person's adoption were issued for a four-month public consultation on 1 April last year. The 123 responses to the consultation document and the information gathered at regional consultation events and other meetings have informed the development of the regulations and supporting statutory guidance that will take effect in December.
	In respect of those in care, the answer to the specific Question asked by the noble Baroness about the Government's consultations under the 2002 Act is that the information provisions in the 2002 Act do not extend to those who, as children, were looked after by a local authority but who were not placed for adoption. The issue of information for those in care or previously in care did not form part of the public consultation on the disclosure of information to adults who were adopted as children, and I have no matters to lay before the House in that regard.
	Moving on from the formal consultations under the 2002 Act, I must say that the Government recognise that the provision of information and support for those in care and those formerly in care is a serious issue. Millions of our fellow citizens are or have been in care—several times the number who have been adopted. The state owes substantial obligations to both groups in information and support.
	We fully recognise those obligations. As I set out the substantial improvements that have taken place and are continuing to take place, I stress that the Government remain open to suggestions and proposals for further improvements. We shall consider seriously the several constructive suggestions that were made today, and I shall respond to both noble Baronesses and the noble Earl directly when we have given that consideration. In particular, we shall consider the point made by the noble Baroness about consolidating past record-keeping requirements and the noble Earl's well taken point about the adequacy of local authority counselling and data provision services in meeting the needs of those who are and have been in care.
	I shall make four points in setting out the Government's position on the provision of information and support for those in care or formerly in care. First, there is an important difference between adopted children and those in care. The information requirements of the two groups that we are discussing need to be considered in that context. For those in care, whether they are children who are voluntarily accommodated or who are looked after under the terms of a court-mandated order, the parental responsibility held by the child's birth parents remains in place, with care orders additionally conferring parental responsibility on the applicant local authority. The state does not take over those responsibilities in full.
	That brings with it a requirement—it obviously does not apply to adopted children—that local authorities work actively to promote ongoing contact with children's parents and other relatives throughout their time in care. In particular, paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 places a duty on a local authority that is looking after a child to promote contact with his or her parents, relatives, friends and other persons connected with him or her, unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child's welfare.
	In the case of adopted children, the parental responsibility of birth parents is expunged at the point at which an adoption order is made, as is any parental responsibility that may additionally be held by a local authority. Thus, although contact, whether direct or indirect, between an adopted child and his birth relatives might continue after an adoption order has been made, there is no obligation on the local authority actively to promote such contact. So in this key respect also, the two groups are very different and the information requirements in respect of looked-after and adopted children are in that respect greater, and meeting them has required significant improvements in the regime applying to those in care, or previously in care. That has also taken place.
	That leads on to my second point, which is that an essential precondition for providing information is that care records should be made and retained—a point made by all three speakers in the debate. It may seem an obvious point, but, as has been said, until 1988 there was a requirement only that records about a child in care be kept by a local authority for three years after the child's 18th birthday. Many local authorities did not retain records beyond that required period. As a result, it is probable that millions of records relating to adults previously in care during part or all of their childhoods have been destroyed in the decades up to 1988.
	That practice, I know, has proved a cause of deep distress to those who have tried without success to access their records to learn more about their past circumstances including, in some cases, details of their birth parents—as was indeed the case in the distressing instance given by the noble Baroness in her opening speech. That completely unsatisfactory position was transformed by regulations in 1988 which made it a legal requirement that case records for looked-after children be retained by the relevant public authority until the 75th anniversary of the child's birth or, if the child dies during childhood, for a period of 15 years after his or her death.
	Furthermore, since 1991, when the Children Act 1989 was commenced, local authorities have been obliged, on a statutory basis, to develop and maintain proper records relating to the plans for and progress of children in their care—obligations under which, of course, adoptive parents are not placed. The case records of a looked-after child should include the background and history of the child and his or her family; how he or she came to be looked after; a running record of the child's life as a looked-after child and all relevant official documents; for example, any care or other court order, the record of reviews of the child's case, school reports and health reports. Local authorities are expected to use the standard Looking After Children record system to record much of that information. The case record should also contain personal material such as letters from the child's parents, photographs and mementos.
	The case record should be well organised, up to date and easily accessible. The record must be kept in such a way that it is possible to trace the decisions made at each stage of the child's life in care and the reasons why those decisions were made. At every stage of the child's time in care, the record must show the views of the parents, the wishes and feelings of the child and the views of others who are important to the child.
	Thirdly, however, it is not enough for information simply to be kept; it also needs to be accessible, and here too the statutory regime has improved significantly in recent years. In respect of those currently and previously in care, the Data Protection Act 1998 applies, which gives an individual the right, under the Section 7 subject access rights, to know what information is held about him or her.
	One issue raised in the debate is whether the access regime which applies to those in care, or previously in care, under the Data Protection Act 1998 is as fit for purpose as the regime which is about to come into force in relation to adopted persons under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. On this point, I am advised that the principles underlying the two regimes are the same. Under the 1998 Act, information held for social services purposes is exempt to the extent that disclosure of it would cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the individual. The noble Baroness asked how many exemptions have been granted in relation to the 2,000 orders under the Act. I am told that, unfortunately, that information is not collected centrally. I therefore cannot give her a reply.
	However, the existence of this exemption is clearly appropriate to ensure that a person, whether currently or previously looked after, is able to receive information about their past, but not in those instances where the disclosure might be injurious to them. There is also the need carefully to consider how best to handle third party information, including through the seeking of consent for its disclosure where necessary. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, new regulations will set out key steps that adoption agencies will need to take in considering whether to disclose or withhold identifying information, including the requirement to seek the views of the person who would be identified by disclosure.
	The two regimes are broadly similar in their intent and impact, in terms both of their focus on safeguarding the person seeking information against harm and in the protection of information that would identify third parties.
	There is a further important aspect to the provision of information in respect of those in care. The provision of such information is not a matter to be left by local authorities until adulthood, but should form a key element of direct work with them while they are in care. Many social work practitioners utilise the tool of a looked-after child's "life story book" in their work. This sets out an account of the child's life, written for the child, as an ongoing process, rather than a one-off event. Whether or not this tool is used, careful work is expected, under good practice guidance, to be done with each looked-after child throughout their time in care to help them to understand what is happening to them, why it is happening and what the plans are for their future welfare. The life story book provides an immediate accessible record of that work, which should be maintained for as long as the child needs or wants it.
	Looked-after children experience many different types of care arrangements. Some will spend only a few days or weeks in care, perhaps on only a single occasion, perhaps caused by the temporary absence of their parents. Others may spend longer in care. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether children entering care were starting younger and staying longer. "Yes" is the answer; the average duration in 2004 was 778 days, up from 580 days in 1994. But the number in long-term care is down from 1,200 to 950 in the same period.
	Those who spend a long time in care are most probably placed in foster care placements before returning to live with their family or to live independently as young adults. In the large majority of all of these instances, the children retain contact with their parents and other members of their birth family. Indeed, one-eighth of looked-after children are placed with their relatives and friends. In recent years, it is increasingly the case that children who are unable to return to their family, and with whom there are fewer significant, beneficial attachments, are considered for permanent placement through adoption.
	Of course, this good practice in promoting contact and maintaining contact between looked-after children and their birth families used to be far less systematic than it is now. A generation and more ago, much less emphasis was placed on the importance of retaining ongoing links with or knowledge of birth families. About twice as many children were looked after then than is currently the case, with more use being made of distant residential care placements, often run by large voluntary organisations.
	In the past decade or so, it has been very much to the credit of many of those organisations, such as Barnardo's, NCH—formerly the National Children's Home—and the Children's Society, that they have made considerable efforts to meet the needs of adults who were formerly in their care. Their work has involved providing information, counselling and other support to adults who wish to know more about their circumstances as children. These services have actively complemented the work of local authorities, whom these "former care adults" often also approach, in search of information about their past lives.
	Thanks to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, local authorities are now required to remain in contact with and to provide support to care leavers, at least until they are aged 21 or, if they are disabled, 24. There is obviously no such equivalent requirement in respect of young adopted adults, who continue to be supported by their adoptive families.
	In general, these different information and support requirements reflect the fact that the needs of these two groups of people, both during their childhoods and as adults, are divergent. The Government believe that contemporary good practice, underpinned by the legislation, regulations and guidance I have described, will ensure in the vast majority of cases that children currently in care or leaving care receive the information and support they require to help to make a successful start in life.
	My fourth, concluding, point is a wider one. When it comes to the provision of information services, and indeed all support services, whether adoption or care situations are involved, services are only as good as the people providing them. Improvements to the recruitment, training, support and resourcing for social work as a profession is a key government priority. Since the 1998 White Paper Modernising Social Services and the subsequent passage of the Care Standards Act 2000, we have taken major steps to improve all aspects of the social work profession. We have introduced a three-year degree-level professional qualification, undertaken a national recruitment campaign and provided additional funding to support the social care workforce as a whole, together with a new national registration scheme for the social care workforce.
	The recently published Children's Workforce Strategy, currently the subject of consultation, proposes further improvements, including more flexible entry routes to social work, improved training and development to raise quality and more effective leadership and management for social work.
	That is my reply to the Question. I shall respond in writing to points I have not covered. Perhaps I may make one final observation. In reading the debates on the Adoption and Children Bill in 2002, I was struck by a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the difficult issues with which we are contending. She described the regime for adoption and statutory care as,
	"the state seeking to replicate the best of something which is complex and which throughout history has never been perfect—family life".—[Official Report, 10/6/02; col. 26.]
	That summarises the challenge we face. Our objective—providing the best for children who cannot live with their birth families—is indeed hard to meet, seeking to replicate a family life which is itself not perfect. But we are duty-bound to strive for the best and it is a duty which the Government fully accept.

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

A message was brought from the Commons, That they concur with the resolution of this House of 19 May.
	House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.